Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 4201 - 4220
of 19,483
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Sep 2011, 2:59 am
MICHAEL GRIFFITH, No. 08-3668-cvUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT;2009 U.S. [read post]
22 Jan 2025, 6:00 am
The Supreme Court recently agreed to consider Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 10:32 pm
”The case cite is SM Licensing Corp. v. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 8:31 am
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Amgen, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2008, 2:18 am
Trans USA Products, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 2:59 am
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in Google Inc v Equustek (2017 SCC 34). [read post]
7 Apr 2018, 12:24 pm
(Equilon Enterprises v. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 7:50 am
Williams sued for service mark infringement and false advertising under state and federal law, along with cybersquatting. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 5:24 am
Multifab, Inc. v. [read post]
Case Law, Canada: Baglow v Smith, defence of “fair comment” succeeds in landmark blogging libel case
4 Mar 2015, 4:50 pm
Simpson; 2008 SCC 40, Grant v Torstar Corp , Grant 2009 SCC 61 and Crookes v. [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 9:14 am
See also JCRA v. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 6:34 am
State v. [read post]
22 May 2018, 11:13 am
See Johnson v. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 4:32 am
City of Riviera Beach, Florida, United States v. [read post]
17 Jan 2025, 6:00 am
N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. [read post]
17 Jan 2025, 6:00 am
N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. [read post]
26 May 2023, 1:02 pm
” Ermini v. [read post]
30 Dec 2021, 8:08 am
Brittex, not Dollar, was the first to use that mark in connection with pawn brokerage and pawn shop services, said the court, and the Board provided no support for the notion that a registrant has priority as to a specific service it was second to offer just because it was first to offer a different specific service (Brittex Financial, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 12:03 pm
Maciel, Mark M. [read post]
29 Dec 2019, 6:13 pm
See American Polo Association, LLC v. [read post]