Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 2801 - 2820
of 21,684
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jan 2022, 4:00 am
In Lee v. [read post]
6 Jan 2022, 12:21 am
The claimant said that by stating in their trade mark application their bona fide intention to use the mark, they caused the public to believe they were associated with the claimant. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 9:30 pm
In Moore v. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 4:20 am
The United States Olympic Committee v. [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 11:08 am
No, said Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore yesterday in Doe v. [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 9:26 am
Shin v. [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 7:08 am
The case is entitled Ross v. [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 3:47 am
Co., Ltd. v. [read post]
3 Jan 2022, 10:50 am
” This is the first redistricting in Georgia since the 2013 Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. [read post]
3 Jan 2022, 5:28 am
The court “marked [the proceeding] off [the] calendar without prejudice. [read post]
2 Jan 2022, 6:53 pm
Does CIDA apply to first-party property coverage actions sued in NY state courts? [read post]
2 Jan 2022, 8:17 am
TRADE MARKSLise Charles (WTR) provides an overview of the most-read posts on Word Trademark Review (WTR) on European trade mark case law over the past year, including analyses of cases dealing with issues such as unconventional signs (i.e., colour marks and 3D marks) (MHCS v EUIPO | Case T-274/20 and Guerlain v EUIPO | Case T-488/20), the risks of using a mark in a manner other than that registered (Fashioneast Sàrl v EUIPO | Case… [read post]
1 Jan 2022, 7:34 pm
It also marked the last year of that union. [read post]
31 Dec 2021, 5:00 am
California v. [read post]
31 Dec 2021, 1:00 am
In 3 cases, the applicants were not properly represented by a lawyer before the GC: T‑128/21 (Finnish legal counsel), T-716/20 (lawyer was CEO of the applicant), and T‑424/21 (Daimler v. [read post]
30 Dec 2021, 8:08 am
Brittex, not Dollar, was the first to use that mark in connection with pawn brokerage and pawn shop services, said the court, and the Board provided no support for the notion that a registrant has priority as to a specific service it was second to offer just because it was first to offer a different specific service (Brittex Financial, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 9:22 am
As reported by Cheryl Miller in The Recorder, Assemblyman Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, and Sen. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 9:22 am
As reported by Cheryl Miller in The Recorder, Assemblyman Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, and Sen. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 5:30 am
Circuit ruling in Taylor v. [read post]
28 Dec 2021, 5:42 pm
They must use clearly marked official vehicles. [read post]
