Search for: "Marks v. State"
Results 3081 - 3100
of 19,799
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Aug 2021, 6:36 pm
The ruling in Chrysafis v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 3:22 pm
558/08 Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV, a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands).Portakabin Ltd, who made and sold mobile buildings, owned the Benelux trade mark PORTAKABIN for goods in Classes 6 (metal buildings, parts and building materials) and 19 (non-metal buildings, parts and building materials). [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 9:25 am
The first Monday in October traditionally marks the beginning of the United States Supreme Court's yearly term - and it provides an excellent opportunity to look at the cases the Court will be hearing this year. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 12:00 pm
”) (quotation marks omitted). [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 1:13 am
486/07, Ford Motor Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Unnecessarily Long and Pompous Name), Alkar Automotive, SA. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 9:42 pm
Defendants have not yet answered Topline’s complaint or responded to the motion.The case cite is The Topline Corp. v. 4273371 Canada, Inc., No. 07-0938 (W.D. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 5:00 pm
Judge Blackburn cited two cases in support of his authority to enter such an order: United States v. [read post]
4 Dec 2015, 4:44 pm
The Ninth Circuit utilizes the eight-factor test of AMF Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 9:24 am
The floor goes to Katfriend Tove Graulund.* Lego 3D manikin mark valid, says General CourtJeremy reports on Case T‑395/14 Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd v OHIM, Lego Juris A/S, a General Court of the European Union decision regarding the validity of a Lego Community trade mark that will be familiar to many readers who are children, have children or are movie buffs: the three-dimensional shape of a little Lego man.* Swiss cheese, Innocence and a question of… [read post]
10 Jun 2017, 7:47 pm
Discrimination/Retaliation *Yinger v. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 8:09 pm
State of Wyoming (10th Circuit, March 28, 2017) (affirming dismissal of McCoy's complaint, among other things, because it lacked any plausible discrimination claim, and he waived any challenge to his retaliation claim)*Poff v. [read post]
21 Jul 2018, 8:17 pm
Discrimination/Retaliation*Mielnicki v. [read post]
19 Nov 2021, 12:39 am
Co., 514 U.S. 645, 656 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm
ARTICLE V Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances: 1. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 6:23 am
DeSena v. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 4:22 am
As his recent Legal 500 entry states, Tom is as "smooth as silk, and no doubt he will be one soon. [read post]
12 Aug 2023, 4:37 am
Anna Maria Stein reviewed a recent EUIPO BoA’s decision, which stated that a 3D trade mark described as a “heart-based bread roll” is devoid of the necessary minimum degree of distinctive character. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 12:36 pm
In Bachar v. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 4:10 am
Second, although Lord Carnwath favoured effective supervision as the general rationale for a common law obligation to give reasons, the obligation could be justified in the present case (as in Oakley v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2017] 2 P & CR 4, [2017] EWCA Civ 71: see Mark Elliott’s post) on the basis that “openness and fairness to objectors required the members’ reasons to be stated” (at para 57,… [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 9:28 am
Bosch and Mark J. [read post]
