Search for: "Lanham v. State"
Results 261 - 280
of 2,894
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Apr 2022, 3:50 pm
Dist. v. [read post]
18 Apr 2022, 6:30 am
To finally “have the flat washboard abs and the sexy v-shape [they’ve] always wanted”? [read post]
16 Apr 2022, 9:01 am
Epic Metals Corp. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 7:40 am
Similarly, the SJC noted that the “controls required under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 7:40 am
Similarly, the SJC noted that the “controls required under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. [read post]
24 Mar 2022, 1:36 pm
Evolve Biosystems, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Mar 2022, 4:11 am
Monster Energy Company v. [read post]
23 Mar 2022, 8:26 am
The First Circuit addressed the reach of the Lanham Act in Cecil McBee v. [read post]
23 Mar 2022, 8:23 am
Ciccio v. [read post]
21 Mar 2022, 6:53 am
Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 1:20 pm
Victory Global, LLC v. [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 12:33 pm
Mosafer Inc. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 8:31 am
Eyenavision, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Mar 2022, 9:07 am
False Association Under the Lanham Act: The court says plaintiffs state a claim under the Lanham Act: Taking [plaintiffs’] allegations as true, it follows that Tito & Tita represented it was associated with all the historic La Baguette content it failed to delete, associated with or endorsed by La Baguette as a successor, and endorsed by all La Baguette’s existing Facebook followers. [read post]
9 Mar 2022, 10:16 am
Brown Bottling Gp. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2022, 12:34 pm
ThermoLife Int’l LLC v. [read post]
4 Mar 2022, 9:18 am
’” The examining attorney at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refused to register the proposed mark on the ground the phrase falsely suggests a connection with a person (here Donald Trump) in violation of Lanham Act Section 2(a), and also because this mark violates Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act. [read post]
2 Mar 2022, 9:19 am
Then, in Iancu v. [read post]
28 Feb 2022, 4:19 am
" The CAFC noted that the Supreme Court has, in the past five years, held unconstitutional two portions of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act: In Matal v. [read post]