Search for: "Mark C. Good"
Results 4941 - 4960
of 5,901
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jun 2010, 5:48 am
(IPKat) Global Global - General Apple and open and closed systems: podcast (opencontentlawyer) Global - Trade Marks & Domain Names Dot ‘brand’ TLDs (ipwars) Global - Patents Micron, NPEs and the suspicion of hypocrisy (IAM) An NPE is born (IAM) Canada ‘Canadian DMCA’ defends DRM, legalizes DVRs (Ars Technica) Bill C-32: Long-awaited copyright reform plan flawed but fixable (Michael Geist) Bill C-32: The day after… [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 2:39 pm
It's Case C? [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 12:02 pm
Danone, which sold ACTIVIA yoghurt under its DANONE house mark, describing that product as containing "bifidus essensis", said Glanbia had infringed its ESSENSIS trade mark by selling ESSENCE yoghurt; the trial judge dismissed the action, held that Danone had not made any genuine use of its Irish trade mark ESSENSIS for the goods in Class 29 yoghurt) for which it was registered for the statutory period of five years from the date of publication of the… [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 9:05 am
Article 7(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks in its original version provided:‘The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the Community under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 2:09 am
It extensively advertises its goods under the mark in various well-known periodicals, and the goods have received "widespread" unsolicited media coverage.The Board therefore found the mark to be famous for purposes of the fifth du Pont factor.The goods of the parties are in part identical, and therefore the Board must presume that they travel in the same trade channels to the same classes of purchasers.Turning to the marks, the Board… [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 9:55 pm
Good luck, says the IPKat! [read post]
29 May 2010, 6:33 am
Hansen, Reading, MA SMSA Jeffrey C. [read post]
27 May 2010, 12:50 pm
’ The Conoco Phillips employee replied, ‘[C]ertain people, meaning women? [read post]
26 May 2010, 8:44 am
If buyer C truly didn’t know about the sale to B, then C gets the mark and B loses out. [read post]
26 May 2010, 8:44 am
If buyer C truly didn’t know about the sale to B, then C gets the mark and B loses out. [read post]
26 May 2010, 6:46 am
At Balkinization, Mark Tushnet gives three “inside baseball” observations on Graham v. [read post]
25 May 2010, 2:17 am
Silence with knowledge that a respondent has incorporated a trademark in its domain name can support legitimacy if the respondent has brought itself within the safe harbor of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. [read post]
21 May 2010, 3:19 am
If a trader cannot (when it is truly the case) say: "my goods are the same as Brand X (a famous registered mark) but half the price", I think there is a real danger that important areas of trade will not be open to proper competition. 17. ... [read post]
20 May 2010, 3:20 am
All rights reserved by Carl C. [read post]
19 May 2010, 10:12 am
” Again I ask, “What good is changing my settings then? [read post]
19 May 2010, 7:27 am
Therefore, the Panel finds that such diversionary use of the disputed domain name for Respondent’s own commercial gain does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). [read post]
17 May 2010, 7:10 am
The Panl found that failure to make active use of the domains meant they were “not connected with a bona fide offering or goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). [read post]
17 May 2010, 6:10 am
c) Where a contempt proceeding is proper, (1) what burden of proof is on the patentee to show that the newly accused device infringes (see KSM, 776 F.2d at 1524) and (2) what weight should be given to the infringer’s efforts to design around the patent and itsreasonable and good faith belief of noninfringement by the new device, for a finding of contempt? [read post]
16 May 2010, 10:24 pm
As such, the preface to this article attempts to crudely summarize the two.Preface October 10th, 1794 arguably marked the nation’s first medical malpractice claim. [read post]
15 May 2010, 5:54 am
Ebert,The Interrelationship of C(60), Soot and Combustion, 31 Carbon 999 (1993). [read post]
