Search for: "Marks v. State " Results 4761 - 4780 of 21,686
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Dec 2019, 6:00 am by Kevin Kaufman
Key Findings Excessive tax rates on cigarettes approach de facto prohibition in some states, inducing black and gray market movement of tobacco products into high-tax states from low-tax states or foreign sources. [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 2:19 am by Edith Roberts
” Yesterday the court heard oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 12:06 pm
However, the recent Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Bobek in case C-702/18, Primart Marek Łukasiewicz v. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
But "[t]he condition of Indians in relation to the United States is perhaps unlike that of any two people in existence … marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions that exist nowhere else," Cherokee Nation v. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 3:39 am by Edith Roberts
First up is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
29 Nov 2019, 4:07 am by Edith Roberts
At the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh looks at Monday’s second case, Georgia v. [read post]
28 Nov 2019, 4:42 am by Farah Mukaddam (UK)
  The AG stated that grounds for invalidity set out in the EU Trade Mark Regulation were clear and exhaustive. [read post]
28 Nov 2019, 4:42 am by Farah Mukaddam (UK)
  The AG stated that grounds for invalidity set out in the EU Trade Mark Regulation were clear and exhaustive. [read post]
28 Nov 2019, 4:42 am by Farah Mukaddam (UK)
  The AG stated that grounds for invalidity set out in the EU Trade Mark Regulation were clear and exhaustive. [read post]
28 Nov 2019, 4:42 am by Farah Mukaddam (UK)
  The AG stated that grounds for invalidity set out in the EU Trade Mark Regulation were clear and exhaustive. [read post]
27 Nov 2019, 3:21 am by Edith Roberts
” For the ABA Journal, Erwin Chemerinsky previews New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
27 Nov 2019, 2:52 am
The Registrar rejected this claim, since a society could use different marks to denote its services.Section 7(5) TMA In relation to “HARVARD CLUB OF SINGAPORE”, the Opponent relied on S7(5) TMA, which states that a “trade mark shall not be registered if or to the extent that its use is prohibited in Singapore by any written law or rule of law”. [read post]