Search for: "United States v. Goodwill" Results 381 - 400 of 485
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jan 2012, 3:14 pm
Today the General Court held otherwise after a successful appeal by Tilda from the Board of Appeal decision: Tilda Riceland Private Ltd v OHIM (T304/09). [read post]
25 Jul 2021, 7:19 pm by Francis Pileggi
She found that it cost Optimis a total of $4 million counting loss of market share, referral sources, patients, payors, goodwill, and revenue, combined with the levy the defendants filed on Optimis operating unit’s accounts receivable funds, interfering with its business operations and Optimis’ cash flow and forcing it to borrow at a $1.4 million cost. [read post]
25 Nov 2011, 6:47 am
The decisions of Judge Colin Birss QC in the Patents County Court earlier this year in Dame Vivienne Westwood v Anthony Knight (noted by the IPKat here and here) made fascinating reading. [read post]
17 Feb 2009, 4:15 am
This is particularly significant since Opposers' "primary activities are admittedly performed outside the United States. [read post]
1 Jul 2018, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
The Transparency Project Blog has a post analysing the recent “civil partnership case”, R v Secretary of State for International Development [2018] UKSC 32. [read post]
1 Dec 2023, 11:16 am by Eric Goldman
The law, in its preamble, stated these objectives: WHEREAS, the People’s Republic of China is an adversary of the United States and Montana and has an interest in gathering information about Montanans, Montana companies, and the intellectual property of users to engage in corporate and international espionage…. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 4:28 am
– EIPR article (PatLit)   United States US Patent Reform Dr. [read post]
29 Oct 2007, 9:41 pm
Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner at 20-24. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 10:07 am by Dennis Crouch
  The IPR procedure is only being used against the best United States patents. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 5:17 am by Rebecca Tushnet
The TTAB found that the preponderance of the evidence “readily establishe[d] blatant misuse of the FLANAX mark in a manner calculated to trade in the United States on the reputation and goodwill of petitioner’s mark created by its use in Mexico. [read post]