Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 261 - 280
of 21,405
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Aug 2013, 6:50 am
Brigadier General Mark Martins’s statement regarding this week’s hearings in United States v. [read post]
11 May 2018, 1:24 am
Evid. 801(c) and 803; Safer, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 7:34 am
Interflora British Unit v Marks and Spencer PLC Flowers Direct Online Limited [2009] EWHC 1095 (Ch) (IPKat post here), the English Court of Appeal examined in detail the nature and role of survey evidence. [read post]
26 Apr 2021, 7:52 am
In an interesting decision earlier this year, the General Court upheld the EUIPO Fifth Board of Appeal’s decision regarding a likelihood of confusion between the Bezos Family Foundation’s application for EU trade mark (EUTM) registration of ‘VROOM’, the name of a global programme aimed at facilitating early brain development, and the earlier EUTM ‘POP & VROOM’, owned by SNCF (France’s state-owned rail company).In particular, the… [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 1:17 pm
Criminal procedure — Jury instructions — Aiding and abetting Richard Brooks and Mark Hatmaker were involved in a conspiracy to illegally purchase prescription pharmaceuticals. [read post]
6 Feb 2018, 5:29 am
Arnold J kicks off CJEU references in Sky v SkyKick After five days in court and 358 paragraphs, Mr Justice Arnold has just handed down his decision in Sky v Skykick [2018] EWHC 155. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 7:18 pm
Military Commissions Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins released a statement following the completion of yesterday’s hearing in United States v. [read post]
26 May 2007, 4:23 pm
In both cases, the state creates a monopoly right over something otherwise available to the masses (especially as the business asset with trade marks is protectable by passing off, so the registration system is a state-awarded bonus created by impinging on public freedom). [read post]
29 Oct 2015, 12:01 pm
In Espinoza v. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 6:38 am
Ruggers, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 8:39 am
Frederick Mark Gedicks (Brigham Young University - J. [read post]
9 Nov 2021, 9:56 pm
The opposition relied on Article 8(4) EUTMR, stating that it was entitled under the applicable law in the UK to prevent the use of the mark applied for by means of ‘extended’ passing off (a concept that shall be elaborated on below). [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 6:31 pm
San Diego v. [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 4:15 am
The judgment in Case C172/18 AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree v Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas addresses questions concerning jurisdiction, in... [read post]
11 Jan 2021, 4:15 am
’s (Weigel) registration of the mark W WEIGEL’S KITCHEN NOW OPEN on the ground that there was not likelihood of confusion with QuikTrip’s registered design mark, QT KITCHENS (QuikTrip West, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Nov 2017, 8:27 am
This is the ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court in its recent decision, University of Louisville v. [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 2:26 am
Lord Neuberger stated that the conclusion of the Court of Appeal in Ellis v Rowbotham [1900] 1 QB 740 that the 1870 Act did not apply to rent payable in advance, is correct. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 11:12 am
” United States v. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 5:29 am
Yes -- Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's qui tam false marking action for failure to state a claim was denied. [read post]
17 Dec 2022, 11:50 pm
Back then, Poland was not a Member State of the EU (it joined in 2004) and was therefore not bound by EU law. [read post]
