Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 4201 - 4220
of 19,839
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Sep 2016, 6:34 am
State v. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 9:38 am
Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit handed down a ruling earlier this month in United States v. [read post]
14 Aug 2024, 3:11 am
” Salmon Spawning & Recovery All. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 11:51 am
United States v. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 4:25 am
United States v. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 10:00 pm
Relying on French case law, the court held that there is no infringement of trade mark rights when a first name is added to a surname already registered as a trade mark, provided that there is no state of confusion in the minds of the public be it visually, phonetically or orally. [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 7:18 am
Palacino et al v. [read post]
15 Jul 2017, 5:11 am
The summary stated that the Supreme Court allows Eli Lilly's appeal and holds that Actavis' products directly infringe Eli Lilly's patent in the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Spain. [read post]
7 Feb 2020, 1:41 pm
This Communication was issued as a consultation with the WTO Member States (MS) on the flexibilities available for MS to craft copyright limitations and exceptions under the principles and objectives of the TRIPS agreement.Trade MarksRiana Harvey considered the judgment of the General Court of the EU in the T-658/18 case concerning Hästens Sängar's trade mark application for its chequered figurative mark. [read post]
29 Dec 2007, 6:43 am
The Indiana Court of Appeals answered that question in White v. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 9:32 am
The Supreme Court. ruling in Maples v. [read post]
Precedential No. 18 (Part I): Fraud! TTAB Grants Petition to Cancel BLOOKE Registration for Bicycles
12 Aug 2024, 3:37 am
Great Concepts, LLC v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 5:00 am
In Belmont v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 9:04 am
In SV Investment Partners, LLC v. [read post]
28 Aug 2006, 9:30 pm
NLRB, 26 F.3d 168, 171 (D.C.Cir.1994); see United States Dep't of Justice v. [read post]
16 Dec 2014, 1:02 pm
See McDonald’s Corp. v. [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 2:24 pm
Without reading the complaint, we will assume the equivalent of a "likelihood of consumer confusion" and/or dilution of the Porsche Cayman mark were the causes of action. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 8:31 am
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Amgen, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 1:08 pm
Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images. [read post]
