Search for: "Mark v. Wish"
Results 461 - 480
of 2,169
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Nov 2014, 4:08 pm
One such instance is Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and others [2014] EWHC 3867 (Ch), a Chancery Division, England and Wales, decision of Mr Justice Nugee of 21 November.Readers may remember that this trade mark spat has already featured several times on this blog. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 11:06 am
By Eric Goldman Mikhlyn v. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 6:06 am
Judgment was handed down today by Mr Justice Bean in the libel case of Cooke and Anor v MGN ([2014] EWHC 2831 (QB)). [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 8:36 am
When you read the complete text of Hamilton v. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 9:46 am
[Post by Venkat Balasubramani, with comments from Eric] Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2007, 9:50 am
Back in 2005 in Troll Company A/S v Uneeda Doll Company Ltd Danish company Troll secured preliminary injunctive relief in the US to protect its fuzzy-haired Good Luck Troll doll (right) against Uneeda's predatory Wish-nik (below, left), the District Court ruling that the Wish-niks infringed copyright in the Good Luck Trolls. [read post]
2 Nov 2012, 7:39 am
” Ward v. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 1:10 pm
S., at 315 (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
2 Jun 2017, 2:55 am
The article contained comments in quotation marks, presented as excerpts from statements made to the investigators. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 9:06 am
In Vujicevic v. [read post]
22 Mar 2015, 2:49 pm
STEFAN V. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 5:17 am
"Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, a defendant is estopped from pleading a statute of limitations defense if the plaintiff was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception to refrain from filing a timely action" (Richey v Hamm, 78 AD3d 1600, 1601-1602 [4th Dept 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442, 449 [1978]). [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 2:54 am
SCGRG-99-679 [2000] SASC 3); and "Exxon" (see Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] RPC 69). [read post]
14 May 2010, 1:06 pm
United States v. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 4:04 pm
Michael Kimble promised to “always respect” Harold Green’s wishes. [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 1:00 pm
I've now had a chance to review the complaint in Van Etten v. [read post]
24 Apr 2007, 1:19 am
" 471 F.3d at 474 (internal quotation marks omitted).BNA subscribers can read the full report here. [read post]
5 Oct 2018, 8:37 am
Supreme Court ruled in Epic Systems Corp. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 11:10 am
In in South [Dakota] v. [read post]
21 Apr 2007, 3:51 am
The Lanham Act (count VI) generally has been construed to protect against trademark, service mark or trade infrginement even though the mark or name has not been federally registered. [read post]
