Search for: "USA v. Mark Green"
Results 21 - 40
of 177
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Nov 2015, 2:35 pm
This afternoon the Court granted review in Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 9:24 am
******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE Never too late 50 [week ending on Sunday 7 June] - Swiss claims | Italian-sounding trade marks for cosmetics | “IP litigation and Enforcement” event | Saving WiFi | Spy scandal at the EPO | Rihanna v DC Comics | KitKat trade mark | Taste trade marks in the Netherlands | Connectivity and human rights | Trade secrets, client confidentiality and privilege | 3-d printing and… [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 3:33 pm
This question is likely still haunting Cisco following last week's US Supreme Court defeat in Commil USA, LLC v Cisco Systems, Inc (2015), Annsley says.* The European Inventor Award - what is the EPO doing? [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:03 am
Greene’s Energy Group, a challenge to the constitutionality of inter partes review, a process used to determine the validity of existing patents. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 6:38 am
| When passing off is enough to successfully oppose a trade mark | BREAKING: Sky's the limit for CJEU references in Sky v SkyKick trade mark battle | Influencers and undisclosed sponsored activities: where do we stand? [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 10:59 am
| When passing off is enough to successfully oppose a trade mark | BREAKING: Sky's the limit for CJEU references in Sky v SkyKick trade mark battle | Influencers and undisclosed sponsored activities: where do we stand? [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 7:14 am
On Tuesday, the Court will hear arguments in Schwarzenegger v. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 7:51 am
Briefly: Mark Shultz of the American Enterprise Institute argues that the Court’s decision earlier this week in American Broadcasting Cos. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2018, 1:48 am
| When passing off is enough to successfully oppose a trade mark | BREAKING: Sky's the limit for CJEU references in Sky v SkyKick trade mark battle | Influencers and undisclosed sponsored activities: where do we stand? [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 6:48 am
| When passing off is enough to successfully oppose a trade mark | BREAKING: Sky's the limit for CJEU references in Sky v SkyKick trade mark battle | Influencers and undisclosed sponsored activities: where do we stand? [read post]
27 Jul 2008, 3:27 pm
In the aftermath of Phillip Morris USA v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 6:33 am
Valladolid, Greene v. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 6:58 am
Mark Green, writing for the Huffington Post, suggests that the Court is likely to overrule that prohibition, making a definitive ruling in the ongoing "contest between a democracy of voters and an economy of capital. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 4:10 am
” Additional coverage of Carpenter, which will be argued tomorrow, comes from Richard Wolf for USA Today and Mark Walsh for the ABA Journal. [read post]
16 Oct 2024, 4:46 am
at 816-817 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Escape Airports [USA], Inc. v Kent, Beatty & Gordon, LLP, 79 AD3d 437, 438 [1st Dept 2010]). [read post]
14 Nov 2017, 4:13 am
Greene’s Energy Group, a challenge to the constitutionality of the tribunal that conducts inter partes review, a process used by the U.S. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 1:10 am
Madison Green Entertainment Sales Inc. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 8:09 am
As discussed here, if considered satire, not parody, Dumb Starbucks could be liable for infringement (Dr Seuss Enterprises v Penguin Books USA (1997)).It seems unlikely that adding DUMB- provides enough distinction for it to avoid being considered an unauthorised derivative of Starbucks’ copyrighted works. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
"An employee is constructively discharged when her or his employer, rather than discharging the plaintiff directly, deliberately created working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would have felt compelled to resign" (Golston-Green v City of New York, 184 AD3d at 44; see Nelson v HSBC Bank USA, 41 AD3d 445, 447). [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
"An employee is constructively discharged when her or his employer, rather than discharging the plaintiff directly, deliberately created working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would have felt compelled to resign" (Golston-Green v City of New York, 184 AD3d at 44; see Nelson v HSBC Bank USA, 41 AD3d 445, 447). [read post]
