Search for: "State v. Mark" Results 2501 - 2520 of 19,834
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2015, 3:18 am
In February 2006 Grain Harvesters’ trade mark attorneys responded by enclosing a sample of packaging, stating that the use of SUPREME had been this way on the packaging since the early 1990s and saying that their client had made no changes from what had been done in the past. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 3:27 am by Amy Howe
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2023, 6:38 am by Eric Goldman
Many trademark attorneys and professors hoped the Supreme Court would provide more guidance on how to resolve conflicts between trademark and free speech rights in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. [read post]
6 May 2011, 1:00 pm by McNabb Associates, P.C.
The fabrication of counterfeit money, whether coin or paper, counterfeit titles or coupons of public debt, created by national, state, provincial, territorial, local, or municipal governments, banknotes or other instruments of public credit; also counterfeit seals, stamps, dies, and marks of state or public administrations, and the utterance, circulation, or fraudulent use of the above mentioned objects. 14. [read post]
11 Sep 2024, 7:07 am by Söğüt Atilla
Trade MarksImage by Riana HarveyMarcel Pemsel demonstrated how difficult it can be to prove the distinctiveness of a figurative mark on its own, when it is generally used in conjunction with a word mark. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 7:15 am
  Or not....On December 10, the Beastie Boys filed an Answer and asserted counterclaims including copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, unfair competition, and misappropriation of right of publicity (under California state law). [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 2:41 am
As required, it stated that it had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 1:24 pm
The Ninth Chamber of the General Court gave judgment today in a fierce battle over a Community trade mark application in Case T‑170/12, Beyond Retro Ltd v OHIM, the other party to the proceedings being a US company, S&K Garments, Inc., which was victorious in the Board of Appeal. [read post]