Search for: "State v. Mark A. Humphrey"
Results 21 - 40
of 127
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jun 2020, 7:14 am
Use in the court of trade As stated above, the most interesting point discussed by Sir Alastair Norris was whether the activities of Merck US constituted use in the UK in the course of trade. [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 5:16 am
While the plaintiff’s filing of an application to register the SULKA mark in the United States was “certainly relevant” to intent to market products in the United States, it had little bearing on his ability to expand his business to the United States (Selah v. [read post]
11 May 2020, 7:53 am
Case date: 20 April 2020 Case number: No. 18-56221 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
Argument preview: Determining the statute of limitations for military rape — and possibly a lot more
16 Mar 2020, 12:28 pm
” When the Supreme Court entertains argument in United States v. [read post]
22 Feb 2020, 6:11 am
Ann Arbor, 675 F.3d 608, 611 (6th Cir. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 7:00 am
Nearly a century after the Supreme Court decided Humphrey’s Executor v. [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 1:37 am
In affirming the federal district court’s dismissal of Neutron Depot’s suit alleging infringement of the INSURANCE DEPOT mark against Bankrate, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Neutron Depot did not own the mark outright at any point when the infringement took place (Neutron Depot, LLC v. [read post]
31 Jan 2020, 8:37 am
The GC further stated that trademarks in the field of pet care products and food (classes 5 and 31) would normally be perceived visually, as the products are purchased from shelves. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 4:09 am
& Sons Edible Oils Ltd. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 12:16 pm
Several decades later, Judge Mark H. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 12:11 am
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that all of Engage’s asserted marks were merely descriptive and lacked secondary meaning, including sole only mark the district court deemed valid mark but not infringed by Intellisphere (Engage Healthcare Communications, LLC v. [read post]
4 Dec 2019, 1:10 pm
Hazel, and Mark A. [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 12:00 am
United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 1:14 am
In the latest bad faith case, Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v. [read post]
21 Oct 2019, 1:23 am
Little time is wasted in stating that the acquisition of rights with no intention to use, and potentially to prevent third parties from using the mark in relation to these goods or services, will indeed constitute bad faith. [read post]
15 Oct 2019, 12:55 am
Therefore the TTAB was correct in granting the petition of competitor Ambev S.A. to cancel the mark due to abandonment (Cervejaria Petropolis SA v. [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 1:34 am
Consequently, the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to allow it to reconsider this award (4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 11:57 pm
Case date: 07 August 2019 Case number:No. 18-10157 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 4:17 am
The court also affirmed a district judge’s order sanctioning L&L for failing to disclose its third-party license agreement in discovery (Beach Mart, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Aug 2019, 2:26 am
[1] (Iancu v. [read post]
