Search for: "WELLS v. USA" Results 261 - 280 of 3,202
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Dec 2019, 12:11 am by Joseph Arshawsky
Joseph ArshawskyThere was no evidence that the firm’s marks achieved secondary meaning, and the same marks were being used as trademarks as well as service marks in the advertising space. [read post]
., a well-known pocket watch parts manufacturer, failed to prove the likelihood of consumer confusion in its suit alleging that Vortic LLC infringed its trademark by selling a wristwatch that contained refurbished antique pocket watch parts that retained Hamilton’s original trademark, the U.S. [read post]
27 Apr 2019, 6:14 am
it discusses iRobot Corp. v. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 12:35 pm by Matthew Guariglia
Take Action Tell Congress to End the CDR Program Related Cases: Jewel v. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 3:40 pm by Jon Gelman
This decision will influence lifetime medical coverage and will ancillary impact settlement negotiations involving workers' compensation insurance medical benefits.Today's post is shared from scotusblog.com/"Monday’s decision in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. [read post]