Search for: "United States v. Marks" Results 321 - 340 of 9,481
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Oct 2014, 12:20 pm by Dan Ernst
Maryland, will be held Thursday, October 9, 2014 at 6:00 pm in the Chamber of the Supreme Court of the United States. [read post]
Trial evidence supported the district court’s judgment, blocking registration of VAGISAN in the United States. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 9:11 am by The Docket Navigator
"[Plaintiff] argues it should not have to pay any costs because it was acting in the public interest by bringing the lawsuit as a qui tam relator to help the United States enforce the false marking statute; and if anything, it should only be required to pay half of any allowable costs. [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 12:17 pm by Tom Smith
  This is a partial family portrait of, from front to back, Chopi, me, Gandalf the Lion Hearted, LWJ, Mitzi the Wonderful dog unit, Mark, Patrick, his girlfriend Whitney, and Samwise, recently sort-of rescued from Shanghai, the People's (not Dogs') Republic of China. [read post]
16 May 2014, 2:12 pm by Francisco Macías
”  The name Earl Warren should ring a bell, as he would later become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at the time that the Court heard the Brown v. [read post]
2 May 2022, 7:16 am by Rick Hasen
SYMPOSIUM – 2022 – SAFEGUARDING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO VOTE The Post-Trump Rightward Lurch in Election Law by  Michael Kang  on  April 29, 2022 The United States Supreme Court’s decisions last Term, Brnovich v. [read post]
14 Jul 2020, 4:14 am
" As to meaning, applicant's mark "suggests a subset of Opposer's TEQUILA emanating from or associated with the United States of America. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 2:22 am by John L. Welch
Respondent "essentially argues that petitioner lacks standing because it neither pleaded use nor registration of its mark in the United States, nor otherwise pleaded any trademark rights in its mark that are protectable in the United States. [read post]
26 Sep 2022, 12:20 pm by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo
Rothschild, Case No. 1:22-cv-00384, related to trade mark infringement and the sale of NFTs of “MetaBirkins” -pending: motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint denied-; Nike, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
Just one week before, however, we had discussed Rescuecom v Google (...), a case where the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit come to the opposite conclusion on the exact same facts. [read post]