Search for: "U.S. v. Mark R"
Results 441 - 460
of 3,640
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jun 2019, 2:01 am
Robert MargolisDistrict court correctly held that trademark owner failed to raise genuine factual issue as to secondary meaning of the asserted mark. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 7:32 am
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF LAWRENCE R. [read post]
23 May 2023, 6:30 am
Posted by Brian R. [read post]
23 May 2023, 6:30 am
Posted by Brian R. [read post]
10 Aug 2018, 9:41 am
Magistrate Judge Mark Lane issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that U.S. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 8:00 am
Dukes, 564 U.S. ___ (2011) (discussed here). [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 1:07 pm
” Once in brighter lights, Whitley noticed “[r]ed marks, like whips of some sort,” on L.P. [read post]
24 Nov 2007, 6:02 pm
District Court for the District of Maryland (source: Justia), this one captioned Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America v. [read post]
27 Jul 2023, 12:16 pm
Ferencz Matiangai Sirleaf, Rendering Whiteness Visible International Decisions Julien Chaisse & Kehinde Folake Olaoye, United States—Origin Marking Requirement, WT/DS597/R Faith O. [read post]
7 Aug 2020, 6:30 am
U.S. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 6:00 am
Supreme Court’s March 24, 2015 decision in B& B Hardware, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 7:37 am
R. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 7:05 am
Mark v. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 10:03 am
Harjo v. [read post]
28 May 2019, 4:07 am
(“WSI”) willfully infringed ACT’s “777” trademark for nail brushes, the jury also reasonably found that ACT’s claims were time-barred because knew or should have known about WSI’s use of the 777 mark more than four years before filing suit, the U.S. [read post]
28 Oct 2021, 1:07 pm
Supreme Court case United Health Services v. [read post]
13 Apr 2021, 11:04 am
Over time, the composition of U.S. research spending has changed. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 7:31 am
The trademark owner satisfied the requirements for Article III standing (SM Kids, LLC v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 8:50 am
Pyett, No. 07-581, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), is a marked departure from established precedent in some jurisdictions and welcome news for employers who often prefer to present their cases to an arbitrator, rather than a jury. [read post]
4 May 2011, 11:13 am
S. 214, 227–228 (1998) (quoting Texas & Pacific R. [read post]
