Search for: "Marks v. Cross" Results 261 - 280 of 2,842
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jun 2018, 8:25 am
"That's Mark Joseph Stern at Slate. [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 10:54 am
During that time, she observed traffic and saw the pedestrian "WALK" signal in her favor before entering the street and crossing over Bedford Avenue within the marked crosswalk. [read post]
20 May 2014, 7:15 pm by Richard M. Re
The above is cross-posted from Re's Judicata. [read post]
28 May 2020, 12:05 am by Léon Dijkman
It held that it had cross-border jurisdiction as against Nestlé BV on the basis of Art. 125(1) EUTMR, which provision also declares applicable the general rules of Regulation 1215/2012 (the Brussels I-Reg). [read post]
26 May 2009, 4:09 pm
Attorneys for Sylvester Stallone and another named cross-defendant recently filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court challenging a significant published California Court of Appeal decision (Brescia v. [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 3:30 am
  Cross-examination of expert witnesses in patent casesAt paras 88 - 93 of the judgment, Arnold J took the opportunity to extend his previous guidance concerning the instruction of experts in Medimmune v Novartis [2011] EWHC 1169 (Pat) (see para 99-114) into the realm of cross-examination. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 3:23 am
Where a mark is not registered, a claimant must show that it has used the mark at issue as a trademark, and that the defendant has used the accused mark as a trademark. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 11:00 am by Orin Kerr
We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 5:56 am
 * CJEU: Retail store design may be registrable as a trade mark (Apple Inc. v DPMA)  A post on one of the most surprising trade mark decisions of recent years comes from Birgit, who writes on the CJEU's ruling in Case C-421/13, Apple Inc. v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt. [read post]
16 Jan 2006, 3:29 am
The court heavily discounted this circumstantial evidence of strength because the CareFirst mark almost always appeared together with the distinctive Blue Cross Blue Shield design.The court also discounted the fact that the marks at issue used the same two words, although in different order, for similar reasons: the fact that the CareFirst mark almost always appeared with the distinctive Blue Cross Blue Shield design "serve[s] to lessen any confusion… [read post]