Search for: "State v. Register"
Results 4181 - 4200
of 13,697
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Aug 2018, 8:54 am
Three relevant quotes from SEC v. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 7:36 am
., v. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 3:14 am
On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the pleading as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 11:55 am
See Citigroup Inc. v. [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 10:05 am
South Dakota v. [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 7:44 am
Validity of W3's UK trade markArticles 5(2)(b) and 5(3) 1994 Trade Marks ActThe easyGroup contended that W3's UK trade mark should be declared invalid and that it should have not been registered. [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 6:31 am
T.A.B. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 8:12 am
On August 15, 2013, Philpot registered the work with the United States Copyright Office under Certificate Number VAu 1-164-624. [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 6:11 am
Days later, in Washington, D.C., the special counsel filed a new superseding indictment against Manafort and Konstantin V. [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 4:00 am
" Troester v. [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 1:17 am
In the case of August Storck KG v OHIM, the CJEU saw that a mark can be registered under Article 7(3) (which has to be read in conjunction with Article 52 above) "…only if evidence is provided that it has acquired, in consequence of the use which has been made of it, distinctive character in the part of the [EU] in which it did not, ab initio, have such character". [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 1:17 am
In the case of August Storck KG v OHIM, the CJEU saw that a mark can be registered under Article 7(3) (which has to be read in conjunction with Article 52 above) "…only if evidence is provided that it has acquired, in consequence of the use which has been made of it, distinctive character in the part of the [EU] in which it did not, ab initio, have such character". [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 1:09 pm
OTR sued West, asserting various claims under the Lanham Act and state law. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 7:51 am
The statute clearly states that registration is required. [read post]
28 Jul 2018, 2:32 pm
Dep’t of Parks & Recreation for State of Cal. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 7:20 pm
Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 692, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in IBP, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 7:51 am
Two years later, in McDonald v. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 6:50 am
The purpose of this entry of the Toronto Injury Lawyer Blog is to focus on a rather long personal injury case called Davies v. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 3:04 am
Jacobs v. [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 10:43 pm
In Moody v. [read post]
