Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 4701 - 4720
of 21,686
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Dec 2019, 7:55 am
” This overbroad formulation is a far cry from the definition set forth by the Supreme Court in Davis v. [read post]
27 Dec 2019, 4:16 am
American Polo Association, LLC v. [read post]
26 Dec 2019, 12:59 pm
Supreme Court Upending Established Case LawBy Max Mitchell | Pennsylvania Law Weekly December 23, 2019Pennsylvania State Capitol. [read post]
26 Dec 2019, 7:07 am
During the landmark case, Michigan Department of State Police v. [read post]
24 Dec 2019, 3:12 pm
In an early case, 1984’s Southland Corp. v. [read post]
24 Dec 2019, 1:51 pm
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). [read post]
24 Dec 2019, 12:29 am
Note: Yes, I know that two states do not require unanimous verdicts for conviction, and that SCOTUS has already heard argument in Ramos v. [read post]
22 Dec 2019, 10:26 am
Since the relevant public would perceive the sign as an indication that the food and drink products sold under it contain narcotic substances that are illegal in many EU Member States, the mark at issue was found to be contrary to public policy. [read post]
21 Dec 2019, 4:09 am
Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Georgia v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 4:17 pm
State Protection for a Federal Crime Although some states have legalized (in whole or part) the sale and distribution of cannabis, such activities remain illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act[3] (as well as under many state laws). [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 12:26 pm
” Examination Guide 2-19 This means retailers and other brand owners have some additional options to consider when pursuing a new mark and it changes the way the USPTO handles marks. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 9:41 am
"A dog-eared copy of this decision with multi-color highlights, scrawls and underlined exclamation marks thereafter appeared on the AmeriKat's bulletin board. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 6:20 am
By Mark S. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 5:01 am
’” Impeachment and the Constitution at 50 (quotation marks, citation and footnote omitted). [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 1:30 am
With regards to 'compound' marks, such as Aceto Balsamico, that have not specifically mentioned that the individual components of the name are protected separately doesn't mean that those components are not protected outright. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 1:30 am
With regards to 'compound' marks, such as Aceto Balsamico, that have not specifically mentioned that the individual components of the name are protected separately doesn't mean that those components are not protected outright. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 1:30 am
With regards to 'compound' marks, such as Aceto Balsamico, that have not specifically mentioned that the individual components of the name are protected separately doesn't mean that those components are not protected outright. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 1:30 am
With regards to 'compound' marks, such as Aceto Balsamico, that have not specifically mentioned that the individual components of the name are protected separately doesn't mean that those components are not protected outright. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 12:11 am
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that all of Engage’s asserted marks were merely descriptive and lacked secondary meaning, including sole only mark the district court deemed valid mark but not infringed by Intellisphere (Engage Healthcare Communications, LLC v. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 9:12 am
Toolson v. [read post]
