Search for: "Henkell v. Henkell"
Results 41 - 60
of 99
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Aug 2015, 11:48 am
The Alert discusses the California Supreme Court’s reversal of its own heavily criticized decision in Henkel Corp. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 10:43 am
The opinion overruled the California Supreme Court’s prior decision in Henkel Corp. v. [read post]
20 Aug 2015, 12:47 pm
Co. v. [read post]
9 May 2015, 8:55 am
Rickicki v. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 1:38 am
And Oracle v. [read post]
14 Sep 2014, 7:51 am
Hose v. [read post]
29 Aug 2014, 8:10 am
In Henkel v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 8:08 am
As the CJEU’s case law proves, such requirement applies to any kind of trade mark which is indistinguishable from the appearance of the products, be it a three-dimensional trade mark [Procter & Gamble v OHIM, Joined Cases C-473/01 P and C-474/01 P; Mag Instrument v OHIM, Case C-136/02 P and Deutsche SiSi-Werke v OHIM, Case C-173/04 P), a figurative trade mark consisting of a two-dimensional… [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 9:00 am
See McKinney v. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 10:27 am
Henkel in 1901, and followed from the Court’s constitutional analysis in Baldwin v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 9:01 pm
The Justice Department’s analysis states that since the Supreme Court’s 1910 ruling in Hass v Henkel and its 1924 ruling in Hammererschmidt v. [read post]
3 May 2013, 10:22 pm
Whether the decision in the case C-645/11, Land Berlin v. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 8:40 am
Reciting Seager v Copydex and Banks v EMI Songs, the former judge stated that 'where an inventor wanted to sell his idea for money, money is what he got'. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 8:00 am
Always check with an attorney before making an assignment of policy benefits to another, regardless of the situation. 1 Henkel Corp. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 7:57 am
In Fluor Corp. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 7:57 am
In Fluor Corp. v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 8:37 am
Id. at 41 (citing Henkel Corp. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 12:31 pm
Another group of courts found that the exclusion was ambiguous or required to be interpreted based on history of the exclusion and looked at the presentations of the insurance industry to the various insurance commissioners in the various states “Doer v. [read post]
19 Feb 2012, 1:55 pm
On reading this, the Dutch Supreme Court acknowledged that the Den Bosch Court of Appeal had applied the correct test for assessing the distinctive character of a shape (Joined Cases C-456/01 P and C-457/01P Henkel KGaA v OHIM; Case C-25/05 August Storck KG v OHIM and Joined Cases C-53/01, C-54/01 and C-55/01, Linde AG). [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 10:00 am
Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 76 (1906). [read post]
