Search for: "Mark v. Wish" Results 481 - 500 of 2,170
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Mar 2020, 5:31 am by Aron Laszlo (Oppenheim Legal)
The CJEU addressed the issue in 2011 in Red Bull v Frisdranken (C-119/10), however, the contract manufacturer in that case did not affix the infringing sign to the goods. [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 8:04 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
Takeaways First, Ontario employers can see from O’Reilly v IMAX Corporation that the “one month per year” rule is more of a rule of thumb and is flexible when the courts wish it to be. [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 3:45 am by Edith Roberts
The dust continues to settle from Wednesday’s argument in June Medical Services v. [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 1:49 pm by Kevin LaCroix
” — Kristina Littman, as newly appointed SEC Cyber Chief in her 2020 breakout enforcement action, SEC v. [read post]
28 Feb 2020, 2:14 am
Trade MarksFor Christian Louboutin it’s all about the lady in red sole shoes - a signature appearance that he wishes to protect by way of trade mark registration. [read post]
13 Feb 2020, 5:45 am by Joy Waltemath
The court also denied a motion to stay the proceedings pending approval of a settlement in a related state court action (Abernathy v. [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 1:10 am
Even with the lowered pass mark, only 33.8% of candidates passed the paper.Gantries, 2018The lowering of the pass mark, and the less than sensitive way in which the "borderlining process" was announced (during EQE week), prompted considerable criticism (IPKat: BREAKING: 2018 FD4 (P6 - Infringement and Validity) Pass Mark Reduced). [read post]
3 Feb 2020, 12:42 pm by Elliot Setzer, William Ford
Event Announcements (More details on the Events Calendar) Tuesday, February 4, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.: Governance Studies at The Brookings Institution will convene a panel of policy experts to discuss President Trump’s 2020 State of the Union address to Congress and the nation. [read post]
30 Jan 2020, 4:13 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Thus, an escrow agent can be held liable for . . . breach of fiduciary duty as escrowee” (Takayama v Schaefer, 240 AD2d 21, 25 [1998] [internal quotation marks and [*4]citations omitted]). [read post]