Search for: "Mark v. Mark" Results 421 - 440 of 34,442
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jan 2013, 7:55 am
So when IPKat friend, Stephanie Bodoni (Bloomberg), alerted her to news of today's decision from the General Court in Fun Factory v OHIM concerning not one, not two, but three balls Merpel was thrilled. [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 1:00 pm
  The Book of Genesis -- sort of the  Marbury v. [read post]
26 Oct 2007, 8:10 pm
As the Men of Troy head to Eugene to face the 5th-ranked Ducks, Coach Pete Carroll has made the decision to give Mark Sanchez his third start. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 6:01 am by Daily Record Staff
Mark Vogel, the appellant, claims that David Hillman, one of the appellees, promised him a 50 percent equity share in one of the hotels and ... [read post]
15 Sep 2015, 12:36 pm by Daily Record Staff
Civil procedure — Bad-faith complaint — Sanctions This appeal addresses the order of the Circuit Court for Washington County ordering Mark T. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 7:44 am by Daily Record Staff
(“Wells Fargo”), through its substitute trustees, Mark S. [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 6:52 am by Daily Record Staff
Torts — Bridge defect — Governmental immunity Mark Heim, the appellant, crashed his bicycle while riding on the Baltimore & Annapolis Trail (“the Trail”). [read post]
23 Mar 2022, 7:34 am
Author Aurelien Guichard Licence  CC BY-SA 2.0 Source Wikimedia Jane LambertIntellectual Property Enterproise Court (HH Judge Hacon) NAH Holdings Ltd and another KBF Enterprises Ltd and another [2022] EWHC 323 (IPEC) (16 Feb 2022)The latest definition of a trade mark is "any sign which is capable- (a) of being represented in the register in a manner which enables the registrar and other competent [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 8:17 am by Daily Record Staff
Appellees PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund Investors, LLC (PNMAC) and Mark H. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 7:22 am by Daily Record Staff
(“Wells Fargo”), through its substitute trustees, Mark S. [read post]
The proof of genuine use cannot therefore be relaxed on the grounds that the trade mark owner has established that the trade mark has a reputation in the EU (see CJEU judgment of 8 April 2016, Case T-638/14, Frisa v Frinsa, para. 33-35). [read post]