Search for: "Mark v. Mark"
Results 481 - 500
of 34,442
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2020, 4:15 am
., v. [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 9:43 am
Moab Indus. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 7:45 am
In 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 8:06 am
In Pequignot v Solo Cup Company (No. 2009-1547, Fed. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 3:03 am
Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58 (Keane CJ, Stone and Jagot JJ) [read post]
Service Mark Infringement Lawsuit Filed In Los Angeles By Trademark Attorneys For Couples For Christ
20 Aug 2008, 8:16 am
" The case is titled Couples For Christ, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2015, 12:01 pm
In Espinoza v. [read post]
22 Dec 2017, 12:06 am
& another v S.A. [read post]
26 Nov 2007, 2:16 am
Lutz Superdyne, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 6:00 am
Conclusions In much the same way as was found in the recent Nestlé v Cadbury decision, the general court has set out a clear statement to applicants that their marks must be clearly indicative of commercial origin, and that mere recognition, whether alone or in combination with other marks is unlikely to be sufficient for acquired distinctiveness. [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 8:02 pm
Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited [2008] FCA 934 the Federal Court rejected a claim by Gallo that Lion Nathan's trade mark "Barefoot" in relation to a beer infringed its trade mark "Barefoot" in relation to wine. [read post]
6 Sep 2014, 5:45 pm
Por una diferencia de 67 votos, el licenciado Bimbela fue elegido ante los candidatos Javier Echevarría, Carlos Vázquez y Pablo Carrasquillo. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 1:17 pm
Specifically, FICO responded to a initial descriptiveness refusal by providing a literally true but “artful” response tricked the Examining Attorney into thinking that FICO, and FICO alone, used the phrase as a mark, when in fact FICO simply used it as a range of credit scores, as did others.The case is Fair Isaac Corp. v. [read post]
10 Oct 2007, 10:59 pm
V. [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 1:28 pm
And at "PrawfsBlawg," Re has a related post titled "The Marks Rule and Hughes 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]
19 Aug 2009, 8:46 pm
Chocolaterie Guylian N.V. v Registrar of Trade Marks [2009] FCA 891 '); //--> [read post]
30 Dec 2009, 3:32 pm
Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in McDonald v. [read post]
24 Aug 2022, 4:15 am
Brunetti was the respondent in the 2019 Supreme Court case, Iancu v. [read post]
24 Aug 2022, 4:15 am
Brunetti was the respondent in the 2019 Supreme Court case, Iancu v. [read post]
