Search for: "A----. B v. C----. D"
Results 4001 - 4020
of 10,365
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Oct 2009, 4:46 am
: In re Intellectual Property Development Corporation Pty Ltd (not precedential) (TTABlog) TTAB sustains Nike's Section 2(e)(2) opposition to B-MORE for clothing: Nike, Inc v Gregory A Bordes (not precedential) (TTABlog) TTAB reverses section 2(E)(2) refusal of CATALINA ISLAND GRANOLA: goods/place association lacking: In re Zeller (not precedential) (TTABlog) US Trade Marks - Lawsuits and strategic steps Cold War Museum - CAFC holds argument in appeal from THE COLD WAR MUSEUM… [read post]
22 Nov 2023, 11:08 am
See Section 191-d(1)(c). [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 1:16 pm
In O2 Holdings Ltd v Hutchison 3G Ltd [2006] EWCA 1656 Civ[see the IPKat here] the dichotomy between the laws of comparative advertising and trade marks was referred for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-533/06[noted by the IPKat here] where it was held that compliance with the Comparative Advertising Directive is also ‘honest business practice’. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 6:01 am
B. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 12:00 am
(c), 288a, subd. [read post]
18 Sep 2011, 2:59 am
That was plainly insufficient and, hence, the LVT could not properly have decided to rely on the saving provision.In order to rely on the saving provision, the application was required to contain sufficient information to enable the LVT to determine:(a) whether the premises were premises to which the RTM applied;(b) whether the company was an RTM company;(c) whether there were sufficient qualifying tenants;(d) whether the leases were long leases;(e) whether the tenants had… [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 11:51 am
Text of complaint: Magnone v. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 6:47 pm
” * Chief Justice Roberts announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan, joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D. [read post]
18 Sep 2011, 2:59 am
That was plainly insufficient and, hence, the LVT could not properly have decided to rely on the saving provision.In order to rely on the saving provision, the application was required to contain sufficient information to enable the LVT to determine:(a) whether the premises were premises to which the RTM applied;(b) whether the company was an RTM company;(c) whether there were sufficient qualifying tenants;(d) whether the leases were long leases;(e) whether the tenants had… [read post]
18 Jan 2009, 12:34 am
In U.S. v. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 9:43 pm
Intellectual Science and Technology v. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 9:13 pm
William Carlson and Willis Capital, LLC v. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 1:39 pm
In today’s case (Bricker v. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 9:31 am
.\ In the recent case (Grewal v. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 2:40 am
On March 20th, the Indiana Court of Appeals handed down its opinion in Allison v. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 12:31 pm
” Este discurso bélico permitió la confección de un decreto de reformas constitucionales que, desde el día 18 de junio de 2008, comienza a reducir el catalogo de Derechos Fundamentales del gobernado al modificar el párrafo segundo del artículo 16 constitucional y establecer como requisitos para librar una orden de aprehensión que obren -diferente a acreditar- datos que establecen que se ha cometido un hecho sancionado por la… [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 1:00 pm
La Sección 501 contiene varias definiciones utilizadas en el Titulo V. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 8:28 am
” The proposed survey would ask respondents whether or not they would vote for policies that would increase their cost of living in exchange for specified changes in: (a) impingement and entrainment losses of fish; (b) commercial fish sustainability; (c) long-term fish populations; and (d) conditions of aquatic ecosystems. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 2:13 am
QS Holdings Sarl v Paul’s Retail Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 1038 [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 4:00 am
Contingent permanent appointments Cruz v New York State Unified Ct. [read post]
