Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 2421 - 2440
of 19,483
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Aug 2018, 11:55 am
The Board goes on to state another common rule: the first term in a mark is more likely to be remembered by the average consumer. [read post]
27 Sep 2022, 3:53 am
Narita Export LLC v. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 9:42 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 3:26 am
United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 9:08 am
District Court Judge Mark A. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 6:28 am
Hewlett-Packard's tumultuous breakup with its former chief executive Mark V. [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 10:33 am
United States, involving the Treaty Power and the structural limits of federal authority, Schuette v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 6:32 am
Bd. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 10:33 am
United States, involving the Treaty Power and the structural limits of federal authority, Schuette v. [read post]
20 Mar 2021, 5:51 pm
The court spent much of its opinion attempting to apply the test in Marks v. [read post]
28 Feb 2019, 12:34 pm
Patentlyo discusses the question if the United States Government counts as "a person who is not the owner of a patent" in case Return Mail Inc. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 3:43 am
Hov IP II, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 7:49 pm
See Rambus v. [read post]
15 Nov 2006, 10:08 am
Petrillo v. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 9:47 am
S.A.S. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2022, 7:43 am
To support that, SLC cited the once high-profile J’adore Dior trade mark case in China (IPKat post here) in which the three-dimensional mark at issue, also a perfume bottle, was not granted trade mark registration at that time. [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 8:22 am
Vidal v. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 5:26 am
In Miller v. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 5:15 am
The challenges, however, hit their own high water mark when the Supreme Court granted review in King v. [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 4:02 am
” “”A release is a contract, and its construction is governed by contract law” (Schiller v Guthrie, 102 AD3d 852, 853 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cardinal Holdings, Ltd. v Indotronix Intl. [read post]
