Search for: "Marks v. State"
Results 3681 - 3700
of 19,838
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2012, 9:29 pm
Wright, 343 F.3d 849, 863 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. [read post]
12 Jul 2007, 9:41 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Mark Sidle v. [read post]
24 May 2007, 7:16 am
(See Mark Botti's helpful summary here.) [read post]
28 Jul 2024, 11:09 pm
It was found that Fanatics infringed FanFirm’s “FANATICS” trade mark; however, FanFirm’s trade mark registrations were still cancelled. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 3:27 am
Corp. v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 3:31 am
Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 2:00 am
The GC rejected the arguments and stated that it is up to the applicant for a trade mark, who claims that it is distinctive and who has detailed knowledge of the relevant market, to provide concrete and substantiated indications that the trade mark applied for has inherent distinctive character or has acquired such character through use (T-127/06). [read post]
26 Aug 2015, 4:21 am
Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2020, 3:48 am
Inc. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 12:30 pm
Dupart v. [read post]
25 Sep 2016, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court’s opinion in Michigan v. [read post]
21 Feb 2007, 5:29 pm
In State v. [read post]
28 Jul 2022, 10:02 am
”” In Lindke v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 8:45 am
United States National Pageant, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 8:24 am
World Axe Throwing League, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 4:54 am
Supreme Court’s opinion in Matal v. [read post]
18 Apr 2023, 4:36 am
State Farm Mut. [read post]
9 Apr 2023, 9:30 pm
[On Tuesday, April 4, Georgetown Law devoted a session of its faculty workshop to honoring the publication of The Hughes Court: From Progressivism to Pluralism, 1930-1941 (Cambridge University Press, 2022), a volume in the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States, by Mark V. [read post]
31 Oct 2007, 2:12 am
By Mark A. [read post]
25 May 2007, 4:24 am
Caveat emptor (enter at your own risk).Opinion in the consolidated casePerfect 10 v. [read post]