Search for: "Marks v. Goodding"
Results 21 - 40
of 12,086
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jul 2018, 2:18 am
Gucci America, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 11:02 am
They were being used for the same goods, which were sold in the same shops. [read post]
12 Aug 2008, 11:00 am
Chrysler LLC v. [read post]
20 Aug 2020, 4:15 am
Express Co. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 9:19 pm
The designThe case concerned is Chen v OHMI - AM Denmark (Dispositif de nettoyage), T-55/12 of 25 April 2013 and can be retrieved here. [read post]
11 Dec 2022, 9:56 am
As a result, proof use of the earlier mark in the UK should be disregarded.Background In 2018, Mr Massimo Carlo Alberto Rossi, Mr Salvatore Vacante, and Shoppi Ltd (the interveners) successfully registered the following figurative mark as an EUTM:Registration was obtained for goods and services in Classes 9 (application software, e-commerce software, mobile apps), 35 (advertising analysis), and 38 (photo uploading services, digital transmission of data, message services)… [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 3:31 am
It just a few months ago that this blog reported on the Opinion of Advocate General Tanchev in the Sky v SkyKick, C-371/18 case.important A referral from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales made by Arnold J (as he then was), the Sky case is probably the most important referral in the EU trade mark field made over the past few years. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 1:15 am
The goods were in fact made and marked by Punch in China. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 3:13 pm
U.S. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 9:08 am
The plaintiff’s trade marks were used identically in the course of trade for identical goods, resulting in the finding of trade mark infringement. [read post]
18 Oct 2017, 10:10 am
The Federal Patent Court held that the shape was necessary to achieve a technical effect in the sense of §3(2)(2) Trade Mark Act (corresponding to article 4(1)(e)(ii) Trade Marks Directive (Recast), "signs that consist exclusively of the shape, or another characteristic, of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result").the second lozenge markThe Bundesgerichtshof disagreed. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 2:57 am
The moderator was IPKat’s own Eleonora Rosati (University of Southampton and JIPLP Co-Editor).The panel discussed at length the impact of the recent EU Trade Mark Regulation (EU 2015/2424): Gert Würtenberger and Marius Schneider highlighted the implications of Article 9(4) for goods in transit, whereby customs authorities will now be allowed to detain goods in transit bearing an identical/similar mark no matter where they are destined. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 1:49 am
Arsenal v Reed). [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 2:54 am
This case is Kelly-Brown v Winfrey, No. 11 cv 7875 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
14 Mar 2017, 1:59 am
For instance, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Bloomberg Finance LP v. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 3:23 am
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 11:02 am
They were being used for the same goods, which were sold in the same shops. [read post]
9 Apr 2017, 11:58 pm
Although Apple commonly used the "I" prefix for its goods, it did not have exclusive use of this prefix (e.g. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 2:33 am
Essex Trading Standards v Singh; [2009] WLR (D) 81 “In order to acquit a defendant of a charge of unauthorised use of registered trade marks in relation to goods, contrary to s 92(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, under the statutory defence provided by s 92(5) of the Act, it was not enough for the [...] [read post]
24 Jul 2018, 1:22 pm
In Inter-Industry Conference on Auto Collision Repair v. [read post]
