Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 4901 - 4920
of 21,686
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Oct 2019, 9:19 am
They are permitted in the UK (but we do not see them often), and in other EU Member States, such as Sweden, where this case originated, as well as elsewhere (such as in the US). [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 12:00 am
United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 7:48 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 11:43 am
Thus, when evaluating the marks in their entireties, the marks were not likely to be confused. [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 8:36 am
Last month, the military commission for the matter of United States v. [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 8:15 am
In Illinois v. [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 3:52 am
In short: no trade, no trademark.Two US Court of Appeals opinions have created the possibility that a plaintiff could bring a passing-off action based on use of its trademark outside of the United States only – a powerful new tool for challenging infringers that are first to use the trademark in the United StatesFollowing the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Lexmark International, Inc v Static Control Components, Inc (572 US ___, 134 S Ct 1377 (2014)), interpreting the… [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 1:14 am
In the latest bad faith case, Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v. [read post]
22 Oct 2019, 4:06 am
Recognizing the failing of Vermont’s effort, the Illinois Supreme Court took a different tack in State v. [read post]
22 Oct 2019, 3:49 am
” It contended that CIELA thus “provoke[s] consumers to associate the registered mark with ‘cielo’ and the beauty and purety [sic] of [Montana] the Big Sky State,” where Registrant is located. [read post]
21 Oct 2019, 7:31 am
" Wyeth v. [read post]
21 Oct 2019, 1:23 am
Little time is wasted in stating that the acquisition of rights with no intention to use, and potentially to prevent third parties from using the mark in relation to these goods or services, will indeed constitute bad faith. [read post]
21 Oct 2019, 12:15 am
Facebook is unhappy about the CJEU’s recent decision in Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Ltd (C 18/18), which held that the social media company could be ordered by member states to remove equivalent content, worldwide when content is deemed illegal in a member state. [read post]
19 Oct 2019, 6:39 pm
Macera v Village Board of Ilion, 2019 WL 4805354 (NDNY 9/30/2019) [read post]
19 Oct 2019, 9:37 am
KGAA v. [read post]
17 Oct 2019, 3:59 am
Kansas v. [read post]
16 Oct 2019, 2:26 am
In the introduction to his opinion, he comments critically on the state of thelaw. [read post]
15 Oct 2019, 9:01 pm
United States v. [read post]
15 Oct 2019, 7:11 am
Mark A. [read post]
15 Oct 2019, 12:55 am
Therefore the TTAB was correct in granting the petition of competitor Ambev S.A. to cancel the mark due to abandonment (Cervejaria Petropolis SA v. [read post]
