Search for: "Marks v. State" Results 2541 - 2560 of 19,799
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Nov 2023, 1:41 pm by Holly
The bombshell opinion in Spireon stated that when an applicant proffers third-party trademark registrations for identical marks to show that the Opposer’s mark is too weak to prevent registration of the Applicant’s mark, the Opposer has the burden to prove that those marks are not in use. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 11:54 am
I can only hope it provokes a review of the adequacy of the measures available to combat the international trade in fake goods by preventing their transhipment through Member States. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 3:00 pm by Cyrus Farivar
On Monday, Mark Leno, a state lawmaker who represents San Francisco, is set to introduce a new bill, called the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA). [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 6:43 am
They’re also obviously at risk of simply describing, in a laudatory manner, characteristics of the goods or services in question.CJEU Cases C-398/08 P Audi AG v OHIM (VORSPRUNG DURCH TECHNIK) and C-311/11 P Smart Technologies ULC v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH), already blogged by Jeremy hereand here, set out the position in Europe. [read post]
22 Jun 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, 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]
16 Dec 2016, 12:57 pm by Daniel Nazer
Today, together with the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression, EFF submitted an amicus brief in Lee v. [read post]
25 Mar 2022, 6:20 am by Riana Harvey
This was quickly dismissed by the Judge, stating that the Hearing Officer had properly concluded that there was a low degree of conceptual similarity and that no point of law was to be found there.Turning to the second Ground of appeal, it was submitted that the independency principle had not been applied properly as per Canon v MGM. [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]
19 Dec 2018, 9:49 am
- Asolo v Red Bull | Questioning the trade mark judgesNever Too Late 203 [Weeks ending 14 and 21 Oct] Does FEYONCÉ blur BEYONCÉ's distinctiveness? [read post]