Search for: "Mark v. Wish"
Results 261 - 280
of 2,165
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 May 2023, 3:08 pm
Seafood, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 9:30 pm
Supreme Courts’ decisions in this case against historical tradition and earlier litigation between speakers who wish to express ideas and property owners who wish not to host that expression. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 7:56 am
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 8:21 pm
The Full Federal Court from which the appeal was brought had erred by adopting the rule laid down in Kraft v Gaines, that the exhaustive test for standing included a requirement that trader could, or might reasonably, wish to use the mark under challenge. [read post]
4 Sep 2010, 5:45 am
(Congratulations to Mark Bennett.) [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 12:11 pm
Via Meriem Loudiyi (INLEX IP Expertise, Paris) comes news that this Kat didn't spot himself, though he wishes he had. [read post]
30 Dec 2023, 2:13 am
No LOC owing to weakness of earlier mark (BoA annulled) T-665/22, 08/11/23, SKINIDENT v. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 2:00 am
In so far as the relevant public pays little attention to a sign which does not immediately give an indication of origin or destination of what it wishes to sell, but rather information which is exclusively promotional and abstract, it will not take the time to seek out the various possible functions of the expression or to memorise it as a trade mark (T-749/18). [read post]
7 May 2014, 8:36 pm
(Mark Tushnet has a post raising similar questions.) [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 8:43 pm
Further, in Times Internet v. [read post]
23 Dec 2023, 7:45 am
This year, the highlights series was produced in collaboration with IP practitioners and researchers: Clarisse Mideva, Rita Chindah, and Jessie Mgonga.Marcel Pemsel discussed the recent Advocate General's opinion in the case of EUIPO v Indo European Foods (Case C-801/21 P), which concerns the effects of Brexit on EU trade mark law after the end of the transition period. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 9:38 am
Be careful what you wish for). [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 7:32 am
Finally, it's good to know, as fellow Kat Birgit explains on the Class 46 European trade mark blog, that the German court Bundesgerichtshof has held in "ZOOM" that "paper for copying purposes" is not similar in trade mark law to paper that has been used as for the purpose of producing printed matter such as newspapers, magazines, books and photographs. [read post]
3 Dec 2015, 2:59 pm
They're not very good at policing their own, Mark Bennett's on-point blog screeds notwithstanding. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 2:40 am
According to the court, reversing the decision of the Landgericht, this was not genuine use of the trade mark in the EU under Article 15(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation. [read post]
29 Jul 2008, 7:01 am
In Attal v. [read post]
8 Sep 2006, 10:49 am
Readers tired of constititutional history that does little more than search for quotes that can be employed (out of context usually) when defending or opposing ROE V. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:32 am
The parties were taken to court for the contravention of section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 5:50 am
Here are the questions I've put together for teaching The Health Care Cases, NFIB v. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 10:00 pm
The case was put on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. [read post]
