Search for: "Application of Consumers Union of US, Inc." Results 261 - 280 of 483
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Mar 2015, 7:04 am
This morning the General Court of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) gave its ruling in Case T‑250/13 Naazneen Investments Ltd v OHIM, Energy Brands, Inc. intervening. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 10:51 am
” The Federal Circuit cited its 2009 Aycock Eng’g Inc. v Airflite, Inc. ruling, which explained the use requirement for a service mark. [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 3:14 pm
In yesterday's judgments in Cases T-59/14 ‘INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD’ and T-609/13 ‘SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY’ the General Court of the European Union reviewed the EU case-law on slogan marks, rejecting the appeal of the US-based corporation Blackrock Inc., on the basis that its Community trade mark (CTM) applications were devoid of distinctive character according to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 10:36 am by Robert B. Milligan and Daniel P. Hart
§ 1831(a) and 1832(a) of the EEA and for “misappropriation of a trade secret that is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 10:47 am by Barry Sookman
Further, according to the court “goods coming from a non – member State which are…copies of goods protected in the European Union by copyright…can be classified as… ‘pirated goods’ where it is proven that they are intended to be put on sale in the European Union, such proof being provided, inter alia, where it turns out that the goods have been sold to a customer in the European Union or offered for sale or advertised to… [read post]
29 Dec 2014, 5:25 pm by Chuck Cosson
”  It’s my guess that exploring regulation of “privacy as fairness,” then, will necessarily involve more of a balancing of interests than an application of universal principles. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 3:41 am
As Shalini Bengani explains in this post,TufAmerica Inc v W B Music Corp 13-cv-7847(LAK), decided by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, is another one of those cases. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 7:25 am
It was a communication of the kind which savvy applicants and their advisors are all too aware, but which are targeted at smaller and less experienced applicants who may only have one or a few IP rights. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 3:29 pm
‘It’s Idenix Pharmaceutical, Inc v Gilead Sciences, Inc & Others [2014] EWHC 3916 (Pat) (01 December 2014)’, Darren might answer. [read post]
3 Nov 2014, 3:05 am
If you find this helpful, or just a nuisance, do let us know. [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 5:44 am
” Id. at 999.And the court concluded that, as to Ginger and Fred, “the consumer interest in avoiding deception is too slight to warrant application of the Lanham Act. [read post]