Search for: "Mark C. Good" Results 3381 - 3400 of 5,964
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Nov 2011, 7:41 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Fanciful mark did worse re CONSUMER RECONGITION as a mark than the descriptive/suggestive marks. [read post]
14 Aug 2022, 6:02 am by Jack Goldsmith
  There are many reports that “[c]lassified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 12:02 pm
The whole idea really appealed to me b/c I like being my own person. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 9:39 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  The goods are dolls, not Cinderellas. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 11:43 am by John Elwood
It argues that the Federal Circuit erred in holding that the refusal to register a mark under Section 2(c) violates the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 7:19 am
(IPKat) File-sharing sites unfazed by takedowns, bounce right back (TorrentFreak)   Global - Trade Marks & Domain Names From virtual goods to virtual brands? [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 6:04 pm by Duncan
(IPKat) File-sharing sites unfazed by takedowns, bounce right back (TorrentFreak) Global – Trade Marks & Domain Names From virtual goods to virtual brands? [read post]
10 May 2010, 3:55 am
– NGHC hears passing off case concerning ‘Simply Slim’ slimming tablets; WCHC hears trade mark infringement case concerning use of ‘marula’ on liqueur label (Afro-IP)   Switzerland Prayers to Madonna didn’t help - trade mark cannot be registered for various goods(Class 46)   United Kingdom But who will regulate the regulators? [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 6:29 am
” Interestingly, Judge Stanton went on to cite Tiffany v eBay (2010) (first a summary judgment trade mark case later confirmed by the Court of Appeals) by stating in that case Judge Sullivan held that such generalized knowledge possessed by eBay that some portion of Tiffany goods being sold on its website might be counterfeit was insufficient to impose upon eBay an affirmative duty to remedy the problem. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 2:18 am by gmlevine
Type 1 is encapsulated in paragraph 4(c)(i) as an affirmative defense – that is, the respondent prevails because in the interim it has developed an identity as a business based on the mark. [read post]
28 Sep 2013, 6:24 pm by Ron Coleman
This is consistent with the language of section l.l(a) (C), in which Abboud sold to JA Apparel the right to use and apply for new marks containing Abboud’s personal name. [read post]