Search for: "In Re: Mark Green v."
Results 41 - 60
of 658
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Dec 2022, 7:08 am
Thus, a low volume of goods marketed under that trade mark may be compensated for by high intensity of use or a certain constancy regarding the time of use of that trade mark or vice versa (08/07/2004, T 334/01, Hipoviton, EU:T:2004:223, § 36).Therefore, the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO acknowledged the valid goods that were of sufficient evidence regarding the genuine uses (marked in bold green) while revoking the rest due to insufficient… [read post]
9 Oct 2022, 9:04 pm
Bruen, Dobbs v. [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 4:08 am
DBA Comptime Digital Printing v. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 12:04 pm
See Schulz v. [read post]
30 Sep 2022, 6:05 am
Litigation in the case, Thompson v. [read post]
13 Sep 2022, 6:30 am
Probably the person I have known longest is Mark Graber. [read post]
6 Sep 2022, 1:31 pm
Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Sen. [read post]
21 Aug 2022, 12:35 am
There are two commentaries on the 2022 edition: Professor Mark Hill, “Principles of Canon Law and the Mind of the Anglican Communion” 26 July 2022 and Andrew Goddard. [read post]
19 Aug 2022, 6:06 am
They’re not here to hurt me. [read post]
5 Aug 2022, 4:00 am
National/Federal A Right-Wing Think Tank Claimed to Be a Church. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 2:59 pm
See, e.g., Sarafin v. [read post]
11 Jul 2022, 7:59 am
Tri-State Pension Fund v. [read post]
26 Jun 2022, 1:30 am
There is a long and detailed analysis of the Bill by Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at Cambridge, here. [read post]
20 Jun 2022, 3:11 am
Professionals of NY, PLLC, 111 AD3d 1430, 1432 [4th Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 9:05 pm
[Editor’s Note: This post is based on a comment letter submitted to the U.S. [read post]
12 May 2022, 6:45 am
v=0MDBIGACxig&t=60s. [read post]
11 Apr 2022, 5:07 am
Aleksandr V. [read post]
21 Mar 2022, 3:24 am
Professionals of NY, PLLC, 111 AD3d 1430, 1432 [4th Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
19 Mar 2022, 2:09 pm
The FDA acknowledges, for instance, that the acceptable intake is set to mark “a small theoretical increase in risk,” and a “highly hypothetical concept that should not be regarded as a realistic indication of the actual risk,” and thus not an actual risk.[9] The corresponding hypothetical or theoretical risk to the acceptable intake level is clearly small when compared with the human’s lifetime probability of developing cancer (which the FDA states is greater… [read post]
23 Feb 2022, 4:48 pm
After nearly 90 minutes of debate in Arizona v. [read post]
