Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 301 - 320
of 21,404
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2018, 7:02 pm
“Trump’s Shield on the Bench: Brett Kavanaugh’s criticism of United States v. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 6:14 pm
Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 9:59 pm
By Donald Zuhn -- With oral argument in the rehearing en banc of Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 2:14 pm
COMMON LAW TRADEMARK RIGHTS v. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 3:00 am
But Plaintiff did not, so the court closed this matter.Herengracht Group LLC v. [read post]
3 Feb 2017, 2:48 pm
By Kiran Jassal The Supreme Court of the United States recently heard oral arguments for Lee v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 8:43 am
Promote Innovation LLC v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 5:09 pm
Only owner of a mark can sue for cybersquatting — Garruto v. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 9:00 pm
Mark H. v. [read post]
22 Dec 2017, 12:06 am
& another v S.A. [read post]
21 Dec 2021, 6:03 am
Opinion, at pp. 2-3 (citing Couture v. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 7:38 pm
This would appear to be a strange result (and goes against eg Case T-152/07 Lange Uren v OHIM). [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 1:26 am
As Hill J in Aldi Stores Ltd Partnership v Frito-Lay Trading Co GmbH [2001] FCA 1874, [30] stated: In most, if not all cases, the question whether there has been use as a trade mark will be determined by an objective examination of the use in the context in which it appears.His Honour, in considering whether consumers would perceive the name Delphine as a badge of origin, stated: … the context or setting in which consumers viewed the EDMs [electronic… [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 3:52 pm
The battle for BAVARIA as a beer trade mark continues. [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 6:53 am
The Federal Circuit provided some guidance in The Forest Group, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 12:31 pm
The United States Supreme Court is engaged in behavior never before seen in American history argues Mark Lemley, the William H. [read post]
13 Nov 2018, 12:24 am
(“SMRI”) did not provide the jury with sufficient proof that its unregistered marks “Sturgis,” “Sturgis Motorcycle Rally,” and “Sturgis Rally & Races” marks were valid marks that acquired secondary meaning, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled, reversing a district court’s judgment that a gift shop and three individuals willfully infringed and diluted the marks. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 6:29 am
CALL FOR PAPERS: For a proposed symposium to mark the 25th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court’s landmark opinion in Batson v. [read post]
14 May 2009, 3:05 am
The Federal Court of Appeal recently delivered its decision on the appeal in SC Prodal 94 SRL v. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 2:38 pm
In Perquignot v. [read post]
