Search for: "Mark Fish v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 455
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Apr 2014, 3:00 pm
" United States v. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 9:42 am
Teal Bay Alliances, LLC v. [read post]
16 Jun 2017, 3:47 pm
United States (Fiduciary Duty)Finn v. [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 9:10 pm
The Trade Marks were registered in respect of various class 29 food products including fish and seafood. [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 9:10 pm
The Trade Marks were registered in respect of various class 29 food products including fish and seafood. [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 9:10 pm
The Trade Marks were registered in respect of various class 29 food products including fish and seafood. [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 9:10 pm
The Trade Marks were registered in respect of various class 29 food products including fish and seafood. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 1:54 pm
United States (the “fish case”). [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 5:46 am
King Tuna, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2010, 5:33 pm
WILD FISH CONSERVANCY v. [read post]
31 May 2022, 3:26 am
Creel Abogados, S.C. and Carlos Creel Carrera v. [read post]
9 Oct 2012, 3:00 am
Fish & Game Commission of Montana. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 4:10 am
So a practical victory went to Saucy Fish because it had gone into the market with its brand foremost in its mind and having invested upfront in its trade mark portfolio. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 10:33 am
In the case at issue Yoshido’s earlier patents and the products marketed by the applicant [as happened with the earlier patents in Lego] could well-be considered ‘relevant material’ in view of the examination of the possible technical function of the trade mark.In this regard, the Court stated, it is also fine to consider relevant material to the trade mark’s application date. [read post]
1 May 2014, 9:05 pm
Court will hear case of mariner charged with Sarbanes-Oxley records-destruction violation for discarding undersized fish [Jonathan Adler, Eugene Volokh, Daniel Fisher] SCOTUS goes 9-0 for wider patent fee shifting in Octane Fitness v. [read post]
3 Jan 2014, 1:50 am
There is a likelihood of confusion between the Marks BETPACK and BETDAQ and the registration of a confusingly similar mark is contrary to the provisions of Community Law prohibiting the registration of the Trade Mark in the State, particularly Council Regulations regarding the registration of trade marks. [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 8:02 am
He stated that, although the EASY family of trade marks had acquired distinctiveness, the threshold for distinctiveness was set very high and the "EASY" trade mark had not acquired distinctiveness on its own. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 7:57 am
Although it is unclear precisely what standard the Appellate Division applied, it cited its prior decision in Tapp v New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
30 Jan 2010, 7:05 am
") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
