Search for: "In re Wolfson" Results 21 - 40 of 164
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Dec 2021, 10:30 pm
 You're on your own maskless C prosecutors. [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 7:22 am by Eugene Volokh
[A forthcoming article of mine in the New York University Journal of Law & Liberty.] [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 3:26 pm
“If you’re mean, you have to be super edgelord mean, or else you have to be super earnest. [read post]
11 Sep 2021, 2:33 pm by Michael Froomkin
“We’re all worried because we’re not sure what’s going to happen in the future. [read post]
8 Apr 2021, 2:46 pm by Eugene Volokh
Note that different laws may apply to different kinds of businesses, but I won't focus on that in this list (if you're interested in how broadly a law applies, you should read it directly); it's not clear that these laws apply to any online platforms (in part because of 47 U.S.C. [read post]
11 Jan 2021, 3:31 am
" In re Stanley Brothers Social Enterprises, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10658 (TTAB 2020) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Frances Wolfson). [read post]
14 Dec 2020, 9:34 am
In re Global Occupational Safety and Health Academy, LLC, Serial No. 88087696 (Dec. 8, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Frances Wolfson).Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act bars registration of marks that “falsely suggest a connection with persons . . . [read post]
6 Aug 2020, 3:46 am
In re Parallel World Brewing Company LLC, Serial No. 87403137 (August 4, 2020) [not precedential] (opinion by Judge Frances Wolfson). [read post]
21 Jun 2020, 4:06 am
In re Stanley Brothers Social Enterprises, LLC, 2020 U.S.P.Q.2d 10658 (T.T.A.B.2020) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Frances Wolfson).The Board has consistently held that "to qualify for a federal … registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be ‘lawful. [read post]
19 May 2020, 8:54 am
They're are putting judges in Pods. [read post]
6 Apr 2020, 4:22 am
" In re Minky Couture, Serial No. 87589711 (April 2, 2020) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Frances Wolfson).Evidentiary issues: In connection with its 2(f) claim, applicant included in its brief a quotation from a law review article, and claimed that 'social media followings and 'likes' are distinguishable from ordinary website visits as they require additional action on the part of a customer or potential  customer. [read post]