Search for: "*brown v. Mark"
Results 41 - 60
of 1,732
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Aug 2019, 7:22 am
Brown v. [read post]
11 Jan 2022, 5:00 am
Instructure, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Nov 2007, 2:16 am
Arthur Brown & Bro., Inc., supra; Audioson Vertreibs-GmbH v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 12:55 pm
Mark Hess, a partner in our Los Angeles office and an attorney who specializes in employee benefits, wrote an article on Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's) and an interesting 5th Circuit case, Brown v. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 10:19 am
Mayer Brown's Partner James R. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 10:19 am
Mayer Brown's Partner James R. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 11:21 am
Brown v. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 4:22 am
To mark the 60th anniversary of the landmark civil rights decision, Brown v. [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 1:18 pm
Of course, the most obvious example is the litigation leading to Brown v. [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 1:18 pm
Of course, the most obvious example is the litigation leading to Brown v. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 10:34 pm
The most visible evidence for that optimism was the NAACP’s desegregation litigation that led to the Court’s decision in Brown v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 6:00 am
Conclusions In much the same way as was found in the recent Nestlé v Cadbury decision, the general court has set out a clear statement to applicants that their marks must be clearly indicative of commercial origin, and that mere recognition, whether alone or in combination with other marks is unlikely to be sufficient for acquired distinctiveness. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 10:44 am
May 17th, 2014 marked the 60th Anniversary of Brown v. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 4:26 am
Mark A. [read post]
1 May 2011, 5:16 pm
Texas (2003) as the Brown v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 7:46 am
Brown Engstrand & Shely LLC, No. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 10:05 pm
Browne Drug Co. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 8:55 pm
Here is the abstract: In recent years, many prominent originalists have attempted to demonstrate that the holding in Brown v. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 4:49 am
If the mark was not abandoned then Brown owned it, based on Newton's transfer to him of the mark and its continuous use thereafter. [read post]
28 Oct 2009, 4:35 am
Now that it is clear that Justice Scalia did not say that he would have dissented from Brown v. [read post]
