Search for: "Wine v. State"
Results 561 - 580
of 1,026
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Mar 2014, 4:32 am
But in Sherbert v. [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 1:24 pm
See Cassel v. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 7:30 am
(See: Bevis v Renaissance Wine Merchants Ltd. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 12:30 am
” Saucier v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 7:05 am
See, e.g., Metzl v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 4:17 am
John Reinan, Got Wine at the Airport? [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 4:04 pm
’The General Court also found that * ‘the Community protection of wine names established by [that regulation] was based on wine names such as they were determined by laws of the Member States in compliance with the relevant provisions of that regulation. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 8:13 am
On Afro-IP, Caroline Ncube relates the tale of a South African wine brand dispute (Alto v Altus) which ended with Altus preferring a name change (to Fenix) to the prospect of defending a trade mark infringement claim. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 1:58 am
The relevant public by reference to which the absolute ground for refusal must be assessed is the average consumer in the Member State in which the place designated by a GI is situated. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 5:10 pm
Town of Hallie v. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 12:20 pm
It is also fairly easy to spot the respondents who have been coached since they know one and only one story from the Bible, which is inevitably short-handed as: “water to wine. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 7:20 am
Bryant, Jr. v. [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 6:50 am
Daniel Webster is thought to have coined that phrase in his oral arguments in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. [read post]
27 Dec 2013, 6:00 am
McGraw and State Farm Insurance, PICS Case No. 13-2987 (Pa.Super. [read post]
27 Dec 2013, 6:00 am
McGraw and State Farm Insurance, PICS Case No. 13-2987 (Pa.Super. [read post]
24 Dec 2013, 6:17 am
At the time this decision was rendered, the court was applying Askey v. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 1:24 pm
However, Joel Gott Wines, LLC v. [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 5:01 am
The decisionThe IPO’s decision focused on the words of section 3(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which states that “trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character” -- an absolute bar to registration that comes from Article 3(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive and is paralleled in Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-37/03 BioID v OHIM stated that the various… [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 9:01 pm
Causation in Burrage v. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 8:15 am
Or imagine the same as to a law requiring all markets to sell beer and wine, and owners of a Methodist or a Muslim family corporation object to this because they think selling wine is sinful. [read post]
