Search for: "Marks v. United States"
Results 501 - 520
of 10,322
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Oct 2013, 5:57 am
As we begin a week of pre-trial sessions in United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 7:00 pm
Mark Martins’s statement on this week’s hearings in United States v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 10:04 pm
First, with regard to acquiescence, section 48 of the Trade Marks Act of 1994 states the following: “(1) Where the proprietor of an earlier trade mark or other earlier right has acquiesced for a continuous period of five years in the use of a registered trade mark in the United Kingdom, being aware of that use, there shall cease to be any entitlement on the basis of that earlier trade mark or other right— to apply for… [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 10:03 am
In Smedley v Smedley, --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 5647426 (C.A.4 (N.C.)) the Smedleys married in 2000 in Germany, where Mark was stationed as a member of the United States Army. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 8:28 am
An amendment should specifically overturn Kohl v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 11:37 am
[This is the second installment in a series about the oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 10:57 pm
Buccellati v. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 7:42 am
United States … to the splintered opinion in Freeman v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 8:02 am
Sykes in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and assigned case number 17-2252. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 9:08 am
At the same time though, there will be a new “high-water mark” of criminal enforcement. [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 3:30 am
Long-standing precedent makes clear that Trademark Act Section 2(d) provides two separate bases for refusal, one being a mark registered in the USPTO and the other being a mark (or trade name) previously used in the United States and not abandoned, and that the requirement of priority of use applies only to unregistered marks asserted as a bar to registration. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 10:02 am
On Monday, February 12, 2024, Professor Mark Graber published a post on Balkinization about the February 8, 2024 oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
11 May 2016, 4:03 am
Belmora's FLANAXBased on its reading of the Supreme Court’s Lexmark decision, the lower court had dismissed Bayer’s Section 43(a) false association and false advertising claims under FRCP 12(b)(6) and entered judgment on the pleadings as to Bayer’s Section 14(3) claim, ruling that the Lanham Act does not allow an owner of a foreign mark not registered in the United States, who does not use the mark in the United States… [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 9:44 am
My last blog post dealt with a new United States Supreme Court decision (Paidlla v. [read post]
19 Oct 2022, 12:06 pm
Due to the unforeseen unavailability of a panel member, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had to postpone the Epic Games v. [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 9:19 am
Rice, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 2:43 pm
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had to determine if JobDiva Inc. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 2:43 pm
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had to determine if JobDiva Inc. [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 1:24 pm
United States (and its accompanying cases), and the 50th of Brandenburg v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
I’ve marked in boldface, and labeled as [1] and [2], the two separate clauses of Section 3 that identify particular officers and other government officials. [read post]
