Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 521 - 540
of 19,464
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jan 2018, 5:20 am
We can now confirm the full agenda and part of the line-up, as follows:14:00-14:30 – Registration14:30-14:40 – Introduction and welcome14:40-15:40 – Panel 1 – “The fragile state of relations between service providers and brand owners: life after the UK Supreme Court decision in Cartier v Sky”Moderator: Eleonora Rosati(University of Southampton and JIPLP Co-Editor)Confirmed Panellists: Catherine Palmer(Legal Director at… [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 3:01 am
Case C 445/12 P Rivella International AG v OHIM, Baskaya di Baskays Alim E.C. [read post]
25 Nov 2012, 1:00 pm
As a result he referred a number of questions to the CJEU.Parallel importation In Advocate General Jacobs opinion in Joined Cases C-143/00 and C-443/99 Boehringer Ingelheim KG & Ors v Swingward Ltd & Ors [2003] Ch 27 (Boehringer I) he stated that the notice requirement in Condition 5 dated from the Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Centrafarm Bertriebsgesellschaft Pharmazeutischer Erezeugnisse mBH [1978] ECHR 1139 where that Court explained that the trade… [read post]
20 Nov 2006, 9:58 am
Deanna Stull Sandra Brinkman and Mark Brinkman v. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 10:57 pm
Buccellati v. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 11:49 pm
Jessica Gonzales v. [read post]
24 May 2018, 10:50 pm
However, in Sky v SkyKick, the judge held that the EU Trade Mark Regulations (1994, 2009 and 2017) did not explicitly state that a lack of clarity and precision was a ground for invalidity of a registered trade mark, and the CJEU would have to provide guidance. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 2:37 pm
The CJEU’s ruling in DHL v ChronopostThe CJEU made it manifestly clear in its 2011 ruling in Case C-235/09 DHL v Chronopost [see previous Katpost here] that a Europe-wide injunction should only be granted in order to ensure that the proprietor can protect his trade mark, prohibiting only uses which affect or are liable to affect the functions of the trade mark. [read post]
22 Mar 2024, 6:18 am
(L to R) Mark Royero (2L); Adam Stolz (coach); Kaitlin Prece (2L); not pictured: Luis Reyes (coach) The Supreme Court of the United States can agree on something: In McElrath v. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 3:23 am
Barclays Capital Inc. and Barclays PLC v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 4:42 pm
Price v. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 6:30 am
First a word about the plaintiff: Some Kat readers may recall that Pom Wonderful prevailed in a closely watched decision given by the United States Supreme Court on June 12, 2014, Pom Wonderful LLC v Coca Cola Company. [read post]
3 Apr 2019, 6:18 am
Marks DA 17-0686 2019 MT 76N Criminal – Other McGree v. [read post]
3 Apr 2010, 3:30 pm
Trade Mark DilutionUS federal and New York state law allow Tiffany, as an owner of a famous mark, to stop a person from using the Tiffany mark in commerce in a way that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the mark. [read post]
24 May 2012, 6:19 am
The Court states that in this dual system of trade marks, the registration of national trade marks is solely a matter for the Member States and that, therefore, OHIM and the General Court are not competent for either the registration or the declaration of invalidity of those trade marks. [read post]
4 May 2018, 4:00 am
Yesterday the White House marked National Day of Prayer with a ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 10:49 am
So, provided that absolute and relative grounds serve different purposes -– the protection of (i) a general interest and of (ii) the individual trade mark holder -- the AG stated that the relevant public has only one overall impression of the mark -- but that, for absolute grounds of refusal of registration the focus is on possible connections between the mark or its components and the goods and services covered while, for relative grounds, the focus… [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 9:04 am
Iancu v. [read post]
3 Sep 2008, 1:33 am
As stated stated in this post, the New York Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in People v. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 7:26 am
It urged that restriction under Section 18 is permitted only when the description of the mark in the registration is "ambiguous or overly broad," citing Wellcome Foundation Ltd. v. [read post]
