Search for: "United States v. Mark"
Results 5621 - 5640
of 10,392
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2014, 6:34 am
” Briefly: In Education Week, Mark Walsh reports on last week’s decision in Harris v. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 9:35 am
The European Union and the United States voted against the resolution, which they thought counter-productive and polarizing; both stated that they would not participate in the treaty negotiating process.[5] Japan and South Korea also voted no. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 9:01 pm
Evansand United States v. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 2:07 pm
at 346 (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 4:35 am
Overstock.com, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 5:30 am
CNSOPB 2014 FC 450 http://t.co/fs3… http://t.co/1Z49KLbQkO -> Doubt cast over proposed UK laws on private copying http://t.co/SGoRb2p6S3 -> EU calls for radical copyright reform in light of internet’s disruption http://t.co/Sb03kkzzXm via @V3_co_uk -> The Problem with the Aereo Dissent http://t.co/V3ehYt01Vc -> The United States Supreme Court endorses digital privacy in a landmark decision http://t.co/KGxH3Zu3YP -> The Supreme Court Considers Google… [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 7:41 am
There is something inherently unrealistic in saying that A "uses" his mark in the United Kingdom when all that he does is to place the mark on the internet, from a location outside the United Kingdom, and simply wait in the hope that someone from the United Kingdom will download it and thereby create use on the part of A". [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 12:40 pm
United States United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 7:29 am
(collectively, “MadStad”) filed suit against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), its then director, David Kappos, in his official capacity, and the United States of America (collectively, “the Government”) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 4:49 am
Under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the government generally “has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content” (United States v Stevens, 559 US 460, 468 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 7:56 pm
Earlier this week, in People v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 9:31 am
Earlier this week, in People v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 7:30 am
FRENCH: Cliquez ici pour le télécharger. .GRAND CHAMBERCASE OF S.A.S. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 7:00 am
United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 12:33 pm
California and United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 12:33 pm
California and United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 9:22 am
Specht applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for federal registration of the “Android Data” mark. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 7:32 am
AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors, heard 5 June 2014. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 6:33 am
California and United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 5:00 am
United States v. [read post]
