Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 4421 - 4440
of 19,839
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Apr 2021, 4:34 am
Nat’l des Appellations D’Origine v. [read post]
4 Mar 2008, 3:00 pm
A couple of interesting dissents filed today in a denial of rehearing en banc in United States v. [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 7:48 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 11:36 am
See Knight Textile Corp. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 11:36 am
See Knight Textile Corp. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 5:04 am
Steele v. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 8:31 am
United States of America v. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 2:36 pm
Mark Borigini for review. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 2:31 pm
The OHIM’s approach has been supported in BMI Bertollo Srl v OHIM, in which a national application in Italy which listed the headings of several classes was deemed to cover all goods and services which compromised those classes.5. [read post]
20 Feb 2008, 12:35 pm
Rowe v. [read post]
29 Sep 2020, 3:02 pm
In New York v. [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 2:59 am
Wayfair: Court approves state sales tax collection from out-of-state vendors [Caron/TaxProf first and second link roundup, Trevor Burrus and Matthew Larosiere, earlier] Ohio v. [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 10:03 pm
ZERO MEAT v MEAT ZERO Background On 29 September 2021, CPF Food and Beverage Co., Ltd. [read post]
16 May 2022, 2:15 pm
In Israel v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 6:59 pm
Lesniak v. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 1:24 pm
The Supreme Court heard the landmark appeal, Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023], after it was initially dismissed in the High Court and Court of Appeal in 2021. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 4:38 pm
Doudna states in his supporting affidavit that he did not write, post, or even read that report at the time. [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 2:01 am
Little Hare Gin had not provided any evidence of use in the marketplace or stated whether these brands had registered their marks. [read post]
8 May 2022, 1:43 am
Following a hearing, the Hearing Officer issued decisions upholding the objections.In her decisions (BLO/629/21 and BLO/630/21), the Hearing Officer relied on Case T-795/17 Moreira v EUIPO (NEYMAR), stating that— 'bad faith may be assumed in the event of the lack of a proper explanation by the applicant to rebut certain known facts, which in turn led to inescapable motivations on the part of the applicant and as far as the filing of the trade mark application… [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 2:51 pm
Mark A. [read post]
