Search for: "Mark v. Mark"
Results 361 - 380
of 34,426
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Aug 2008, 4:13 pm
This can no longer be allowed in view of the comments in Bovemij Verzekeringen NV v Benelux Merkenbureau, Case C-108/05 [EUROPOLIS], which makes clear that the mark must be distinctive in the whole of the territory of the member state [Merpel would like a little clarification here: is this what Bovemij clearly established?]. [read post]
16 Dec 2016, 11:26 am
Affirms $1.25 Millions Settlement of Action Against Raiders, about Lacy T. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 2:37 pm
Just answerin’—and in only two words: Presidential Immunity (see Nixon v. [read post]
20 Aug 2015, 3:56 am
KGaA v. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 2:46 am
This Decree, which came into force on 9 June 2015 and repealed Decree No. 2001-1603 of 11 July 2001, introduced the following amendments to Tunisia's trade mark law: (i) introduction of electronic filing of applications for the registration of trade marks; (ii) setting out of provisions governing the trade mark registration through the Madrid Protocol; (iii) extension during the opposition period of the time for the applicant to submit observations… [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 2:46 am
The Board observed that, although the words in a word + design mark like applicant's are usually accorded greater weight, in this case opposer K-C's mark comprises only the image of a puppy with its paw on a roll of toilet paper, "so rather than using words to call for Opposer’s goods, consumers might identify Opposer’s brand another way, perhaps by recalling and mentioning the dog, or 'the puppy with toilet paper.'" Kimberly-Clark… [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 12:00 pm
The Black Dog Tavern Company, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Feb 2009, 1:19 pm
Mark William Ivey v. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 12:22 am
As to the combination between colour and shapes, the Court mentioned another similar case decided by the EU General Court with reference to the green square illustrated on the right (decision in Case T‑282/09, Fédération internationale des logis v. [read post]
21 May 2010, 12:05 pm
The first request granted was in Bush v. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 6:37 pm
Prachi Kumari The Madras HC in the case of Shamnad Basheer v. [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 1:21 pm
This was the precise issue discussed in The Boeing Co. v. [read post]
5 Feb 2009, 11:00 am
The Supreme Court in U.S. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2022, 10:00 pm
Partner Nick Bolter and associate Martin Henshall authored an article for World Trademark Review about the decision in Manuka Honey Appellation Society Incorporate v Australian Manuka Honey Association Ltd , in which the UK Intellectual Property Office rejected an application to register Manuka Honey as a certification mark. [read post]
16 Jan 2022, 10:00 pm
Partner Nick Bolter and associate Martin Henshall authored an article for World Trademark Review about the decision in Manuka Honey Appellation Society Incorporate v Australian Manuka Honey Association Ltd , in which the UK Intellectual Property Office rejected an application to register Manuka Honey as a certification mark. [read post]
16 Jan 2022, 10:00 pm
Partner Nick Bolter and associate Martin Henshall authored an article for World Trademark Review about the decision in Manuka Honey Appellation Society Incorporate v Australian Manuka Honey Association Ltd , in which the UK Intellectual Property Office rejected an application to register Manuka Honey as a certification mark. [read post]
16 Jan 2022, 10:00 pm
Partner Nick Bolter and associate Martin Henshall authored an article for World Trademark Review about the decision in Manuka Honey Appellation Society Incorporate v Australian Manuka Honey Association Ltd , in which the UK Intellectual Property Office rejected an application to register Manuka Honey as a certification mark. [read post]
16 Jan 2022, 10:00 pm
Partner Nick Bolter and associate Martin Henshall authored an article for World Trademark Review about the decision in Manuka Honey Appellation Society Incorporate v Australian Manuka Honey Association Ltd , in which the UK Intellectual Property Office rejected an application to register Manuka Honey as a certification mark. [read post]
16 Jan 2022, 10:00 pm
Partner Nick Bolter and associate Martin Henshall authored an article for World Trademark Review about the decision in Manuka Honey Appellation Society Incorporate v Australian Manuka Honey Association Ltd , in which the UK Intellectual Property Office rejected an application to register Manuka Honey as a certification mark. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 8:10 am
After all, the government splits any award obtained with the relator.It appears, however, that the United States is finally acknowledging publicly that the trend of suits under 35 USC 292 has gone too far, given the rash of thinly pled false marking claims that have come to dominate the landscape since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Forest Group v. [read post]
