Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 3721 - 3740
of 21,685
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Dec 2020, 7:20 am
(Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. [read post]
14 Dec 2020, 3:46 am
Corp. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2020, 6:34 pm
The petition asserted wrongdoing in the state’s use of funds from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life, as well as in the state’s negotiation of a settlement agreement with voting rights groups regarding absentee ballots. [read post]
13 Dec 2020, 4:48 pm
IPSO has published a number of rulings and resolutions statements since our last Round Up: 28060-20 Sturt v Mail Online, 1 Accuracy (2019), Resolved – IPSO mediation 27845-20 Garrity v The Scotsman, 1 Accuracy (2019), Resolved – IPSO mediation 27809-20 Levick v The National, 1 Accuracy (2019), Resolved – IPSO mediation 15320-20 Cook v Daily Express, 1 Accuracy (2019), 12 Discrimination (2019), No breach – after investigation 12005-20 Oliver… [read post]
11 Dec 2020, 6:56 pm
First, we heard closing args in the Fairbairn v. [read post]
11 Dec 2020, 1:30 pm
.'" Brief for Petitioner 64 (quoting Morrison v. [read post]
11 Dec 2020, 10:41 am
Wilson, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2020, 5:01 am
They didn’t want to become “arbiters of truth,” in Mark Zuckerberg’s notorious phrasing. [read post]
11 Dec 2020, 3:53 am
Clay Mackey v. [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 5:58 pm
La Boom Disco, Inc., 955 F.3d 279, 283-84 (2d Cir. 2020); Marks v. [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 5:58 pm
La Boom Disco, Inc., 955 F.3d 279, 283-84 (2d Cir. 2020); Marks v. [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 9:57 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 7:33 am
Unites States v. [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 7:15 am
I put "pick" in quotation marks because there often isn't a meaningful choice. [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 2:10 am
In this regard, the Court reasoned as follows:First, jurisprudence suggesting that the mental state of an alleged infringer was irrelevant usually concerned – people who did not know that the goods (containing the infringing sign) that they were selling or otherwise handling were not genuine from the trade mark proprietor rather than those who did not even know that a sign identical or similar to the trade mark existed on the goods at all. [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 4:07 pm
This is important because if the marks are not held to be similar, there can be no likelihood of confusion. [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 6:28 am
This is important because if the marks are not held to be similar, there can be no likelihood of confusion. [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 6:02 am
In this sense, the CJEU reasoned that paragraph 1 in that provision must be interpreted as allowing a court of a Member State to apply a convention concluded between a Member State of the EU and a non-member State before 1 January 1958 or, for States acceding to the EU, before the date of their accession, such as the Convention between Switzerland and Germany concerning the Reciprocal Protection of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, signed in Berlin on 13 April… [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 5:01 am
Pena-Irala, Kadic v. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 11:10 pm
Lord Justice Arnold recapped the current position in England and Wales with regards to website-blocking, noting 20th Century Fox v BT (Newzbin 2) wherein he granted the first such injunction in 2011, and the first application and injunction in relation to trade marks in Cartier v Sky. [read post]
