Search for: "State v. Character"
Results 3641 - 3660
of 7,506
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Mar 2015, 12:12 pm
Its packaging would state Made in China. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 8:45 am
First up is Kimble v. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 2:24 pm
In Kindred v. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 2:24 pm
In Kindred v. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 4:14 am
In Kindred v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
True, Ely himself thought Roe v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 7:38 pm
The shorter the better; if possible, use no more than four characters. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 7:22 pm
The facts are simply stated in the complaint. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 7:06 pm
(Jewell's Lessee v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 12:44 pm
A Diary of the Saturdays, sponsored by Unilever's Impulse(2) Where the earlier Community trade mark does not enjoy a reputation in the Member State in which Article 4(3) ... is relied upon, in order to prove that, without due cause, unfair advantage is taken of, or detriment is caused to, the distinctive character or repute of the Community trade mark for the purposes of that provision, it is necessary to show that a commercially pertinent proportion of the relevant… [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 4:30 am
United States, 333 US 46 (1948), the United States Supreme Court ruled that res ipsa loquitur applied in Jesionowski v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 5:06 pm
United States, 381 F.2d 403 (1967) Baltazar Contractors, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 7:31 am
Ryan attacked Johnson’s character, but Johnson herself testified that her character and integrity were “of utmost importance to her position as executive director”. [read post]
22 Mar 2015, 7:24 pm
Then follows an alternative provision that in default of appointment the property shall go unto such person or persons living at the death of the said party of the first part, and being her heir or heirs at law, as would be entitled to take the same by descent from her in case the same was land belonging to her, situate in the state of New York, and, if more than one person, then in the proportion in that behalf prescribed by the laws of said state. [read post]
22 Mar 2015, 2:59 pm
These circumstances were paramount in the Court's reasoning that, considering the weak distinctive character of the earlier MAGNET 4 mark, the word MAGNET could be descriptive of the characteristics of the goods protected by the Spanish mark, in particular games and toys: it was common ground that magnets had been used for a long time in toys and that there was even a Commission Decision 2008/329 of 21 April 2008 which required Member States to impose the display of… [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 7:31 pm
See Parley, LLC v. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 11:51 am
Start with the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 7:36 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 7:18 pm
The petition of the day is: Gupta v. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 10:49 am
Accordingly, if the words in question had no independent distinctive role, their acronym presumably couldn't have one either.Secondly, wondered the Court, how did Strigl and Securvita apply here, this being a case involving the absolute grounds for refusal of lack of distinctiveness and descriptive character of a mark, not the likelihood of confusion. [read post]
