Search for: "A P C" Results 3121 - 3140 of 25,361
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
The refence to the earlier BARBARA BECKER judgment (C-51/09 P) in para. 33 of the MILEY CIRUS judgment is unconvincing, precisely because “Becker” is an extremely common last name, while “Cyrus” clearly isn’t. [read post]
The refence to the earlier BARBARA BECKER judgment (C-51/09 P) in para. 33 of the MILEY CIRUS judgment is unconvincing, precisely because “Becker” is an extremely common last name, while “Cyrus” clearly isn’t. [read post]
The GC based its judgment primarily on the doctrine of the Koton case (C104/18 P) and Sky and Others (C-371/18) stating that bad faith applied when it was apparent from relevant and consistent indicia that the owner of an EUTM filed its application with the intention of undermining the interests of third parties or with the intention of obtaining (without targeting a third party) an exclusive right for purposes other than those falling within the functions of a trademark. [read post]
The GC based its judgment primarily on the doctrine of the Koton case (C104/18 P) and Sky and Others (C-371/18) stating that bad faith applied when it was apparent from relevant and consistent indicia that the owner of an EUTM filed its application with the intention of undermining the interests of third parties or with the intention of obtaining (without targeting a third party) an exclusive right for purposes other than those falling within the functions of a trademark. [read post]
20 Jul 2021, 9:01 am by Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle
As the Court noted, Congress expressly stated that “the court” was tasked with deciding certain issues in Sections 502, 503, 504(c), and 505 but omitted the phrase from Section 504(b). [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 8:09 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
Is the operation of Google’s search engine service excluded from the application of Part 1 of PIPEDA by virtue of paragraph 4(2)(c) of PIPEDA because it involves the collection, use or disclosure of personal information for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes and for no other purpose? [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
The claimant brought a claim in (a) libel; (b) harassment; and (c) for breach of the GDPR against ‘Person(s) Unknown’ defined as being the authors, editors and publishers of the website. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 7:40 am by Riana Harvey
This case (joined cases C-449/18 P and C-474/18 P) reaffirmed a significant clarification of trade mark law set out by the earlier EU General Court decision - namely, that visual and aural similarities could be counteracted by conceptual differences (see IPKat commentary here).The earlier EU figurative TM in questionAnother such case arose in June in the General Court, this time involving the application for EU word mark ‘MILEY CYRUS’ and opposition… [read post]
15 Jul 2021, 11:46 pm by JR Chaves
O lo que es peor, de descaradas contradicciones, falsedades y groseros embustes”(p.23) Para poder encerrar en 140 páginas la visión de la política española hace falta haber vivido mucho en primera línea de la esfera política, haber reflexionado mucho sobre el sentido y límites del poder público y disponer de una pluma ágil, erudita y cargada de amenidad. [read post]
14 Jul 2021, 10:18 am by Eleonora Rosati
For instance: the Court of Justice of the European Union has held Birkenstock's surface pattern mark devoid of distinctiveness (C-26/17 P); LVMH has not yet been able to secure registration of its Damier Azur pattern (though things may look up now; T-105/19); the shape of Moon Boots may be protected by copyright (in Italy) but it has so far been unsuccessful on the trade mark registration front (1093/2019-1); and the Buffalo position mark has not been considered registrable… [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 9:17 am by Patricia Hughes
In Search of the Ethical Lawyer (2016), p.109 for a list.) [read post]