Search for: "State v. Wines"
Results 521 - 540
of 1,021
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Apr 2011, 2:25 pm
Cooper and Juliette V. [read post]
2 Dec 2010, 1:06 pm
You define a set of legal criteria which, if satisfied, constitute a legal state of likelihood of confusion; then you tick the boxes for the various criteria. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 3:53 am
Stawski claimed rights to his marks in nine states, as an exception to John Gregory Lawson's registration for the mark PROSPER for wines, but Stawski failed to show prior, lawful use of his marks (and he also failed to prove that confusion is not likely). [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 7:42 am
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 31, 2008 State of NC v. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 9:38 pm
’” Brown, 607 F.2d at 700 (quoting Gibson Wine Co. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 5:47 am
Southern Wine & Spirits of Am., Inc., 297 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). [read post]
16 Mar 2023, 10:15 am
EU GI rights will still need to be litigated separately in each EU Member State. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 12:01 pm
King v. [read post]
14 Jul 2013, 10:37 pm
The case is Marin Asenov v. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 8:31 am
Yesterday’s order of forfeiture in the case of United States v. [read post]
18 May 2007, 7:10 am
Two times a week, we go to a nice restaurant, a little wine, good food. [read post]
21 Oct 2021, 8:35 pm
Yes, the Buckley from Buckley v. [read post]
30 Jul 2020, 7:41 am
On June 30, 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Patent and Trademark Office v. [read post]
23 Nov 2019, 7:45 am
” This, the city says, is what differentiates it from a sacrament, noting the Catholic church doesn’t charge for sacramental wine. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 4:41 pm
In Haftbaradaran v. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 4:59 am
While he is not worldly-wise in the ways of cannabis, he has always enjoyed a good beer or three and greatly appreciates his wines and whiskies too. [read post]
28 Dec 2008, 5:35 pm
Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), that the in-person purchase requirement in portions of Kentucky’s statutory scheme discriminated against interstate commerce by limiting the ability of out-of-state small farm wineries to sell and ship wine to Kentucky consumers. [read post]
28 Dec 2008, 5:35 pm
Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), that the in-person purchase requirement in portions of Kentucky’s statutory scheme discriminated against interstate commerce by limiting the ability of out-of-state small farm wineries to sell and ship wine to Kentucky consumers. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 6:32 am
See Authentic Beverages Co. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 9:11 am
Title: Rast v. [read post]
