Search for: "Matter of Mark T." Results 361 - 380 of 16,449
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Nov 2016, 7:27 am by Mike McBride
I don’t know if that is like a Congressional declaration or anything, but no matter. [read post]
7 Nov 2016, 7:27 am by Mike McBride
I don’t know if that is like a Congressional declaration or anything, but no matter. [read post]
3 Jan 2010, 9:05 pm by Brian Tamanaha
The pertinent passage is his closing: I myself don't find these arguments particularly strong, but that -- on the CLS view -- doesn't mean anything about what constitutional law on this matter "really" is. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 11:23 am by jamison
That’s just one of Mark’s projects, she says. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 6:42 am by Rebecca Tushnet
A suggestive mark, like a descriptive mark, should be protected only upon a showing that the mark has developed source significance in the minds of consumers.Very interesting and largely persuasive, though I think he misreads my Gone in 60 Milliseconds--he argues that quick mistakes are very hard to correct, but my points was that (accurate) recognition delays, allegedly produced by the presence of diluting marks, haven't been shown to affect real… [read post]
25 Sep 2016, 5:52 pm by FHH Law
We here in the CommLawBlog bunker don’t get out much, but the FCBA Auction is one of those Be-There-Or-Be-Square shindigs that can’t be missed. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 3:22 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Patently O has a discussion of a manuscript by Mark Lemley et al [ “Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter? [read post]
11 Oct 2015, 11:32 am
"So the moral of the story is clear, says Merpel: you shouldn't be in a stronger position by opting out of the litigation than if you had remained in it. [read post]
22 Dec 2015, 10:00 pm
It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 9:34 pm
Among the features published in this issue are * "Deceit and immorality in trade mark matters: does it pay to be bad? [read post]
21 Oct 2015, 11:08 am
  Over to Tom for his report on AIPPI's Trade Mark Tuesday:  “Don’t miss the (right) mark” In the first session of the day, the panel addressed issues surrounding registrability and regulatory matters affecting the approval and enforcement of pharma trade marks in Brazil, the US, Canada and the Philippines. [read post]
On 18 May 2021, the Polish Supreme Court issued a much awaited ruling to resolve doubts concerning the national limitation period of non-pecuniary claims in trademark matters. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 10:33 am
Wouldn’t it be easier to simply say that perhaps Yoshida’s trade marks were not that distinctive? [read post]
9 May 2022, 12:15 pm by Tom Smith
 At this point it is standard practice, most importantly in matters of personnel. [read post]
8 Apr 2023, 9:55 am by Howard Bashman
In commentary, online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have a jurisprudence essay titled “Clarence Thomas Broke the Law and It Isn’t Even Close; It probably won’t matter; But it should. [read post]
2 May 2014, 5:17 am by Louise Rosen Byer
The writer apologetically declined because as he said “the management [of the other organization] doesn’t want me to write for you because it might be confusing since our publication names are so similar. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 2:30 am by SHG
For all the hatred directed at Trump, it isn’t about him. [read post]