Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 4061 - 4080
of 19,483
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Mar 2016, 10:20 am
The consensus view is that obligations to transfer the ownership of a trade mark do not fall within the scope of the exclusive jurisdiction of Article 22(4) Brussels I (see also Case 288/82 - Duijnstee v Goderbauer). [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 7:13 am
American Soc. for Testing & Materials v. [read post]
24 May 2023, 9:52 am
As trivial as these questions might appear, the answer can make or break your trade mark protection, as the recent General Court judgment in Wenz Kunststoff v EUIPO - Mouldpro (MOULDPRO) (case T-794/21) shows: Background On 6 June 2011, Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. [read post]
11 Jul 2014, 1:56 am
KG v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 9:45 pm
For example, in Kraft Foods Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Dec 2021, 3:08 am
Next, the Board applied the four-part test articulated in University of Notre Dame du Lac v. [read post]
5 Aug 2017, 3:26 am
The UK Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative earlier this week in its judgment in R v M & Ors [2017] UKSC 58.Issued in the context of an interlocutory appeal in criminal proceedings, this ruling concerned the proper construction of section 92(1) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 11:34 am
In Harris v. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 9:30 am
Breach of Contract v. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 1:53 pm
McMahon to Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 9:18 pm
See United States v. [read post]
5 Apr 2018, 7:55 pm
Unifund,[5] and the same is true of other states. [read post]
27 Nov 2011, 9:23 pm
United States v. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the ninth cause of action, alleging aiding and abetting discrimination (see Strauss v New York State Dept. of Educ., 26 AD3d 67, 73). [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the ninth cause of action, alleging aiding and abetting discrimination (see Strauss v New York State Dept. of Educ., 26 AD3d 67, 73). [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the ninth cause of action, alleging aiding and abetting discrimination (see Strauss v New York State Dept. of Educ., 26 AD3d 67, 73). [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the ninth cause of action, alleging aiding and abetting discrimination (see Strauss v New York State Dept. of Educ., 26 AD3d 67, 73). [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 6:24 am
In Arizona v. [read post]
8 Jun 2021, 2:57 am
" Snyder's Lance, Inc. and Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. [read post]
1 Dec 2013, 10:22 pm
- Bernard Maister, Caspar van Woensel• Sport as a brand and its legal protection in South Africa - Owen Dean• Notes and updates• Comment on the Green Paper for post-school education and training - Shihaam Shaikh• Confusion and the bounds of trade mark monopolies: Foschini v Coetzee - Jeremy Speres• The panados and panadon’ts of trade mark registrations: recent developments regarding trademarks used in the pharmaceutical industry - Marius… [read post]
