Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 261 - 280
of 19,773
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
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]
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]
4 Oct 2018, 10:01 am
Circuit’s decision in ACA International v. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 8:02 am
Campbell was understandably unwilling to address the thorny issue of whether use of an EU mark in one member state is enough to establish a reputation in the EU for the purposes of Article 9(2)(b) so simply considered this issue from the point of view of the UK mark. [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]
27 Jun 2008, 3:36 am
ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR BREVARD COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT MARK S. [read post]
23 Aug 2022, 8:52 pm
Noonan -- For most of the past decade, the Supreme Court has been marking out the metes and bounds of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's execution of the post-grant review provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, particularly with regard to inter partes reviews (see "Oil States Energy Services, LLC. v. [read post]
12 Jul 2014, 12:27 pm
I was perfectly content with my life until Jeremy suggested that I blog about the United States Patent and Trademark Office (TTAB) Harry Winston v. [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 2:10 am
In this regard, the Court reasoned as follows:First, jurisprudence suggesting that the mental state of an alleged infringer was irrelevant usually concerned – people who did not know that the goods (containing the infringing sign) that they were selling or otherwise handling were not genuine from the trade mark proprietor rather than those who did not even know that a sign identical or similar to the trade mark existed on the goods at all. [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 2:46 am
As Applicant states in its brief, “the images speak for themselves. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 7:45 am
In 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Feb 2013, 3:02 pm
On January 16, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gunn v. [read post]
4 Feb 2013, 3:02 pm
On January 16, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gunn v. [read post]
5 Oct 2022, 6:44 pm
Guttmacher Institute: “October 2, 2022 marked 100 days since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. [read post]
1 May 2009, 11:36 am
V. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 1:34 pm
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Georgia and the ACLU of North Carolina today filed lawsuits in federal courts in Georgia and North Carolina on behalf of Mark Lyttle, a U.S. citizen of Puerto Rican descent with mental... [read post]
