Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 2381 - 2400
of 21,682
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Apr 2018, 1:53 am
Sunbelt Steel Texas, Inc. (10th Cir., March 13, 2018) (affirming summary judgent in favor of Sunbelt on Balding's FMLA and ADA claims, but reversing on his state breach of contract claim)*Trimble v. [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 6:36 pm
Caliber Automotive Liquidators, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Oct 2019, 3:49 am
” It contended that CIELA thus “provoke[s] consumers to associate the registered mark with ‘cielo’ and the beauty and purety [sic] of [Montana] the Big Sky State,” where Registrant is located. [read post]
10 Oct 2022, 6:23 am
Haaland v. [read post]
23 Mar 2024, 6:49 pm
The court’s ruling in Nafeesa Syeed v. [read post]
21 May 2015, 3:21 pm
JENNIFER MEDINA, Appellant. 2007-08320 Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 9:01 pm
Iancu v. [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 10:13 am
” Monasky v. [read post]
11 Oct 2015, 2:37 pm
In Case C-228/03 Gillette Co v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy, the CJEU stated that use that does not create an impression of commercial connection or take unfair advantage of the earlier mark’s distinctive character or repute will be considered honest practice. [read post]
15 Sep 2021, 1:59 am
The ultimate test however is, as stated by the court in Cowbell, whether, on comparison of the two marks, there is a likelihood of confusion”. [read post]
19 May 2015, 6:45 am
Mark Walsh covered the Court’s denial of certiorari in a special-education “stay put” case, Ridley School District v. [read post]
4 Jun 2009, 1:25 pm
State and SCASA v. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 1:40 pm
People v. [read post]
2 Dec 2021, 2:55 am
Key Findings: Excessive tax rates on cigarettes in some states induce substantial black and gray market movement of tobacco products into high-tax states from low-tax states or foreign sources. [read post]
14 Mar 2020, 3:47 am
Readers might for instance recall the recent judgment in Sekmadienis Ltd v Lithuania [Katpost here], in which the ECtHR considered that a prohibition to use in advertising the image of Jesus and Mary on grounds of public morals should be regarded as an undue compression of the applicants' own freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. [read post]
15 Jul 2017, 7:37 am
” * Kassa v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 5:50 am
Here are the questions I've put together for teaching The Health Care Cases, NFIB v. [read post]
6 Sep 2014, 8:53 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2014, 10:21 am
The agencies claim that, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos v. [read post]
22 May 2012, 2:30 am
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company v. [read post]
