Search for: "Marks v. State"
Results 3721 - 3740
of 19,799
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jun 2024, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court's use of history (and various reflections on the use of history in judicial decisionmaking) in the recently decided Second Amendment case United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 3:15 am
" Perfect Memorials LLC v. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 3:18 am
[citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
5 Aug 2020, 7:59 am
Mark Rienzi is president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents parties or amici in many of the cases described below, including Bostock v. [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 3:40 am
Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 3:28 am
Miller v. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 12:48 pm
Trust v. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 2:23 am
"[T]he dissimilarity of the marks simply outweighs the other relevant factors," said the Board.Appellant Bridgestone argued that the Board had missapplied the CAFC's decision in Bose Corp. v. [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 11:13 am
Florida and Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
Facebook Faces Jurisdictional Hurdle in its Trademark Lawsuit Against Faceporn--Facebook v. Pedersen
15 Mar 2012, 12:09 pm
[Post by Venkat Balasubramani] Facebook v. [read post]
19 Feb 2010, 12:03 am
Still, nowhere is it written that when the shells come out, the mark can’t take a hammer to them.Footnotes1 Citizens United v. [read post]
4 Feb 2021, 3:19 am
Belmora LLC v. [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 12:30 pm
"He also commented that in Interflora 1 (Interflora Inc v Marks and Spencer plc [2012] EWCA Civ 1501 [noted by the IPKat here] Lewison L.J. had stated that different considerations from the general position on surveys apply where the issue is whether a registered mark has acquired distinctiveness. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 7:14 am
C=HOLDINGS B.V. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 2:10 am
See The Clorox Co. v. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 2:04 am
Hokie Objective Onomastics Society LLC v. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 7:17 pm
United States, No. 08-108, at this link. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 4:26 am
Given the high percentage of the market open to Doncaster, even where it could not use the REGURIN trade mark, the exclusive use of the REGURIN mark by Specialty in the UK did not contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States in relation to trospium chloride [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 9:26 am
SportFuel, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Dec 2015, 4:01 am
In Evenwel v. [read post]
