Search for: "US v. Kale"
Results 21 - 38
of 38
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jan 2012, 1:05 pm
I assume most kale eaters don't overlap with Chik-fil-A consumers. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 6:00 am
So, in 2009, in Ashcroft v. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 6:00 am
In Juice Generation, Inc. v. [read post]
Non-final orders, jurisdiction, and fresh pasta with tomatoes, rosemary and braised kale with garlic
4 Mar 2012, 1:47 pm
ROUTH, Appellant, v. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 9:28 am
For example, in a recent case out of Fairfax County, Artitech, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 4:10 am
This happened when a Vermont company’s applied to register the EAT MORE KALE mark for use on apparel and other products. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 3:15 pm
STACY LIPSCOMB, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 1:55 pm
T.M.H., Appellant, v. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 8:42 pm
Dubin v. [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 1:21 pm
(2) uses to inform consumers/the market about aspects of the D’s product—descriptive fair uses, nominative fair use, resale uses. (3) a special subset is use of the mark in technological contexts, such as metatags/AdWords. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 5:25 am
Fair use—maybe it should be unitary. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 9:17 am
FTC v. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 8:52 am
(Expression v. traditional advertising may have something to do with the differences here—NFU is problematic perhaps because it spans both types of uses, whereas Rogers is for expression that isn’t standard advertising.) [read post]
3 Dec 2012, 12:59 am
Statism v. [read post]
12 May 2022, 10:55 am
In Apex Oil Co. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2012, 9:42 am
But the case that every first year law student encounters within days of starting their Torts class (unless taught by a pamphleteer) is Bird v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 1:34 pm
Eat More Kale. [read post]
1 Jan 2019, 3:12 pm
But it is useful, as one examines the priestly role in modern western states, to consider a more traditional relationship between the priest and the state. [read post]
