Search for: "mark"
Results 3821 - 3840
of 135,566
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jun 2009, 1:58 pm
Via the Chicago Tribune, Congressman Mark Kirk is introducing a bill to set penalties at up to 25 years for some pot offenses, that would apply to first time offenders: U.S. [read post]
4 Jan 2017, 9:57 am
The Federal Court faulted the Board for not having explicitly considered the possible uses open to the respondents of their word mark, uses that could give their mark more of a flavour of “ice and winter,” as the appellant’s mark was characterized by the Board. [read post]
4 Jan 2017, 9:57 am
The Federal Court faulted the Board for not having explicitly considered the possible uses open to the respondents of their word mark, uses that could give their mark more of a flavour of “ice and winter,” as the appellant’s mark was characterized by the Board. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 9:45 am
Continue reading › The post ELON MUSK AND MARK CUBAN FILE AMICUS BRIEF URGING SUPREME COURT TO TAKE UP THE SEC GAG RULE appeared first on FINRA Lawyer Blog. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 2:20 pm
Mark your calendars for Wednesday, November 18, 2009, from 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. [read post]
8 May 2018, 7:13 pm
On May 30, the newly-formed Philadelphia Chapter of the Federal Bar Association’s Section on Taxation will host a meet-and-greet event with the Honorable Mark V. [read post]
28 Jul 2008, 7:11 pm
Carlton DiSante & Freudenberger LLP is pleased to announce that Mark S. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 8:28 am
Commentator Mark Levin has come out with a new book, The Liberty Amendments, in which he proposes ten constitutional amendments, and argues for an Article V constitutional convention as the way to get them adopted.While I can commend an effort to develop remedies to constitutional usurpations, Levin has not thought through what is needed. [read post]
17 Oct 2007, 1:32 pm
Like Mark Leventhal, Esq. [read post]
21 Sep 2008, 3:32 pm
To read the entirety of Mark's post, click here. [read post]
9 Feb 2008, 6:39 am
Mark Lankford was on death row for more than two decades... [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 4:33 am
Strength of Opposer's Marks: The Board began with a consideration of the strength of Wrangler's marks. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 10:09 pm
The reduction of the number of conflicts is an integral part of trade mark law at the Community level. [read post]
12 Apr 2019, 1:43 pm
Session 1: The Process for Defining Marks (Registered, Unregistered)What are the different ways to define marks? [read post]
5 Jul 2009, 11:43 pm
The Board said no to Applicant Kathy Sayah's attempt to register the shape and design of a folded brochure (shown below) as a service mark for advertising and printing services, because the brochure fails to function as a mark. [read post]
24 Nov 2019, 6:52 am
Whether a mark is registered in colour or in black is not regarded as a wholly negligible element in the eyes of consumers (Pico Food v OHIM, T‑623/11).There are also differences between the dominant elements of the marks at issue: the human figure in the earlier mark represents a man standing on one foot, whereas the lower limbs of the human figure in the mark applied for are not depicted. [read post]
11 Jun 2022, 12:07 am
Whilst the annual reports provided as evidence contained information on net world-wide sales of iMac computers, no details were provided as to the sales figures of iMac computers in the EU.Finally, regarding the third ground of appeal (the application of incorrect and inadequate criteria of genuine use of the contested trade marks), the GC began by noting that, whilst the joint use of another mark (in this case, the word mark ‘Macintosh’) with the contested… [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 5:22 am
Senate become law, false marking lawsuits may become a thing of the past. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 1:23 pm
The Federal Circuit recognized that many of the marks that were rejected under the offensive marks ban conveyed “hurtful speech” but stated that even such speech is protected by the First Amendment. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 1:23 pm
The Federal Circuit recognized that many of the marks that were rejected under the offensive marks ban conveyed “hurtful speech” but stated that even such speech is protected by the First Amendment. [read post]
