Search for: "Word v. U. S"
Results 341 - 360
of 2,181
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jun 2010, 8:06 am
S. 383 (1914); Agnello v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 9:00 pm
S. 562, 575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 12:12 pm
In Matal v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 1:34 pm
Benson, 285 U. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 1:34 pm
Benson, 285 U. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 6:36 am
The Conflict Case In 2011, in Davis v. [read post]
19 Oct 2010, 3:59 pm
S. 388 (1983); Witters v. [read post]
30 May 2017, 8:53 am
Co., 272 U. [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 4:38 am
TTABlogger comment: Should have filed an I-T-U application? [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Inst., 593 U. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 10:31 am
Co., 135 U. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
The Supreme Court's decision rejecting Petitioner's motion "to reargue and review" is set out below: 2023 NY Slip Op 32352(U) Docket Number: Index No. 156145/2022 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
The Supreme Court's decision rejecting Petitioner's motion "to reargue and review" is set out below: 2023 NY Slip Op 32352(U) Docket Number: Index No. 156145/2022 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 9:28 pm
S. 204, 261 U. [read post]
4 Nov 2024, 6:11 am
The outcome of this dispute may be dictated by a footnote from Justice Scalia’s opinion in Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2016, 9:45 am
”* See Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222Attorney for Petitioner: Julia R. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 12:00 am
In Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
20 Nov 2019, 11:00 am
The U. [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 12:36 pm
The Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, recently held in Nguyen v. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 4:18 pm
The court nonetheless stressed that use of a mark in a domain name as such may be sufficient for constituting genuine use - just not in this case because the public would consider the use of the word Zappa as a general descriptive reference and would not understand it as a reference to the trade mark owner.For an in-depth analysis of this case, this Kat recommends Guido Westkamp’s current intelligence note published in JIPLP: “Personality trade marks and their limits:… [read post]