Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 2501 - 2520
of 19,483
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Feb 2011, 10:33 am
A Massachusetts trial judge, Mark Sullivan, in the case of Commonwealth v. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 4:13 pm
See Chanel, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2019, 9:37 am
KGAA v. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 1:00 pm
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, 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]
23 Apr 2019, 2:57 pm
It states in pertinent part: Abandonment of a Mark. [read post]
22 Aug 2024, 9:07 am
[3] Skidmore v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 3:27 am
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in United States v. [read post]
29 Jul 2021, 2:54 am
Sti. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2024, 9:40 am
Tam (2017) and Iancu v. [read post]
27 Apr 2008, 3:13 am
V&V argued that Wisconsin Cheese entered new trade areas where V&V's mark was already established. [read post]
24 Jan 2020, 4:57 am
State v. [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 4:17 am
Mark Walsh offers a first-hand account of the argument for this blog. [read post]
2 Oct 2013, 12:49 pm
That's the question presented in Hartney Fuel Oil Co. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 3:53 am
Stawski claimed rights to his marks in nine states, as an exception to John Gregory Lawson's registration for the mark PROSPER for wines, but Stawski failed to show prior, lawful use of his marks (and he also failed to prove that confusion is not likely). [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm
ARTICLE V. [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]
6 Dec 2019, 3:40 am
Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. [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]
10 Jun 2024, 3:36 am
As stated above, issue preclusion barred re-litigation of the first DuPont factor: the similarity of the marks. [read post]
7 Jul 2016, 8:44 am
Corp. v. [read post]
