Search for: "United States v. Marks"
Results 5061 - 5080
of 9,515
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Sep 2017, 12:33 pm
In Barbulescu v. [read post]
26 Jan 2017, 7:14 am
Moroccanoil, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 9:41 am
Nov. 1, 2004) (citing Wolfe v. [read post]
14 May 2021, 6:53 am
[See SDL Hair Ltd v. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 3:30 am
The defense made several additional arguments for the abatement, relying upon the factors in United States v. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 3:00 pm
(Class 46) Reminiscences on ‘i Intel’ (Class 46) Portugal Portugal makes extra-budgetary contribution to WIPO capacity building projects (WIPO) Spain The Princess and the Trade Mark Office - High Court of Catalunya overturns SPTO refusal of Spanish trade mark applications for Letizia de Giorgi marks (Class 46) United Kingdom Professor Adrian Sterling’s orphan works scheme (IPKat) Movie industry: London… [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 11:38 am
The United States will also lift sanctions against nine Belarussian entities, though it is unclear which. [read post]
26 May 2009, 2:41 pm
Parker was selected for her role as the lead prosecutor in the successful 2008 case of United States v. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 5:02 pm
And you can access at this link the transcript of today’s oral argument in United States v. [read post]
13 Jun 2018, 12:23 pm
United States. [read post]
25 May 2011, 12:35 pm
" United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 4:19 am
The state points to the two earlier versions of the order, which targeted Muslim countries, as well as comments and tweets made by the president calling for a ban on the entry of Muslims into the United States. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 3:54 am
At Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson reports that the ruling in Barton “has made it harder for longtime green card holders with a criminal conviction to remain in the United States. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 8:43 am
§ 1983, provides: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects ... any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law[.] [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 11:54 am
Compare United States v. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 12:55 pm
Synergy Sport International, Ltd. v United States, 17 C.I.T. 18 (1993).Customs cites many difficulties with the application of the First Sale Rule as the reasons for the proposed change. [read post]
5 Oct 2007, 12:19 pm
According to the Plaintiff, it is a violation of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution:[T]he defendants have irrationally and intentionally treated the plaintiff differently from others identically situated to the plaintiff, in violation of the plaintiff’s right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of… [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 7:55 pm
Synergy Sport International, Ltd. v United States, 17 C.I.T. 18 (1993). [read post]
2 Aug 2019, 10:48 am
Merely descriptive marks will be refused on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 2:34 pm
The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) allows trademarks to be registered on both the Principal and the Supplemental Register. [read post]
