Search for: "State v. Coca"
Results 301 - 320
of 491
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Mar 2018, 6:40 am
FTC v. [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 6:40 am
FTC v. [read post]
22 Feb 2020, 9:38 am
The Second Circuit stated in Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. [read post]
14 Mar 2024, 1:30 pm
Ltd. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 4:59 am
Delacruz v. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 5:19 am
Corp. v. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 6:49 am
And courts and the USPTO have occasionally applied public use doctrine to find that the widespread use of a mark by the public, like “Coke” for Coca-Cola, “Mac” for Macintosh computers, or “the Evil Empire” for the Yankees, can give rise to protectable trademark rights or at least provide adequate foundation to prevent a competitor from making use of a confusingly similar term. [read post]
28 Feb 2021, 4:37 pm
The Irish Examiner reports that Judge O’Connor in the Circuit Civil Court has approved a €9,000 damages settlement offered to a teenager who was pulled back into a Tesco store and wrongly accused of not paying for a can of Coca-Cola. [read post]
8 Jan 2007, 4:40 pm
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. [read post]
27 Oct 2023, 3:17 pm
Hashim v. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 5:53 am
The Los Angeles Times continues the discussion over United States v. [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 5:52 am
Jones v. [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 6:01 am
Coca-Cola Co. v. [read post]
13 Sep 2013, 7:52 am
Fisher v. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 2:56 am
Coke defends against opposition to 'ZERO' trade marksEmma Perot explores Coca-Cola's strategy in defending its ZERO trade marks in a recent USPTO case. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 5:11 am
The first decision -- Werberl v. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am
In the consultation report of the neurologist states: “Neurontin is wholly appropriate in this patient. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 2:22 pm
” Just last year, in City of Arlington v. [read post]
25 Apr 2023, 11:24 am
Warren v. [read post]
18 Apr 2010, 2:28 pm
Unfortunately, it appears that Carefusion has not recently reviewed the Anti-Dilution Act set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1125(c), which states that a “famous” mark is one that is “widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner. [read post]
