Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 3541 - 3560
of 19,838
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Mar 2009, 5:49 am
State v. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 1:11 am
It’s not so long since the Navajo v Urban Outfitters case concerning alleged trade mark infringement, dilution, unfair competition, false advertising, and violations of the Federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which makes it illegal to sell arts or crafts in a way that falsely suggests they were produced by Native Americans (the AmeriKat has already covered this here). [read post]
18 Sep 2024, 3:23 am
Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 2:41 am
Naterra International, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 10:44 am
Excelsior College v. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 6:51 am
” Id.at *9 (citation and quotation marks omitted). [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 9:53 am
United States after the jump. [read post]
18 Oct 2009, 9:35 am
State v. [read post]
17 Mar 2013, 9:01 pm
March 18, 2013, marks the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon v. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 4:39 am
As previously discussed, the Daigle v. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 11:41 am
Introduction With its decision in Adolph v. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 4:28 am
On the black bacground Co-author Katie English McCabe Trust v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 2:53 am
Dynamic Fluid Control (PTY) Ltd. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 4:08 pm
On 12 December 2011 Mr Justice Tugendhat gave judgment on the assessment of damages in three actions by Matthew Cooper and Imaginatik plc (“the Company”) against Mark Turrell ([2011] EWHC 3269 (QB)). [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 7:53 am
The decision is Roger Maier and Assos of Switzerland SA v ASOS plc and ASOS.com Limited at [2015] EWCA Civ 220. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 2:22 pm
GoPets argued that since its mark was distinctive in 2006 when the domain was re-registered, this is sufficient to state a claim under the ACPA. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 9:07 am
R. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 8:02 am
Lilly-v-Arla-Opinion [read post]
25 Apr 2008, 6:18 am
State v. [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 2:19 am
California Fish Co., 138 P. 79 (Cal. 1913); Marks v. [read post]
