Search for: "Mark v. Wish"
Results 41 - 60
of 2,156
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jun 2017, 2:49 am
Here, we say that consumers are “indifferent” to the mark used.The impact of such consumer indifference in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 8(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act was discussed in the recent decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal (CA) in Ceramiche Caesar SpA v Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 7:59 am
A defendant's counterclaims can act as a bear trap for plaintiff, keeping it in a case that it wishes to unilaterally drop. [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 6:40 pm
As was stated by Lamer J. in Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. [read post]
25 Apr 2010, 6:34 pm
Bettner & Joseph V. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 10:04 pm
”The person that has used a trade mark (B) and wishes to rely on estoppel to ward of an infringement action by the proprietor of a registered mark (A), will have to overcome certain obstacles. [read post]
16 Jan 2013, 9:01 pm
Friday, January 22, 2013, will mark the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 4:38 pm
On 2 July 2019, Advocate General (AG) Bobek delivered his opinion in Case C-240/18 P Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), advising that the EUIPO’s decision to reject the registration of the trade mark ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ because it was too offensive should be annulled. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 2:11 pm
The Christian group maintained that it did not wish to exclude persons because of status but conduct: the group did not wish to endorse conduct it found objectionable on religious grounds. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 9:13 am
Minnesota, Birchfield v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:31 am
”The second is the attitude that a patentee would wish to see. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 7:03 am
Today is the 40th anniversary of Roe v. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 4:30 pm
Alas, Brigadier General Mark Martins, now the chief prosecutor of the military commissions, can’t blog for Lawfare any more, as he did when he was in the field in Afghanistan. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 6:56 am
” United States v. [read post]
19 Oct 2014, 8:06 pm
This is C5's first sortie into this field and the Kat wishes it well. [read post]
6 Jun 2014, 3:30 am
The Board reversed a Section 2(e)(4) refusal to register the mark ROMANÓV for decorative eggs made of precious metals, jewelry, and picture frames, finding that the mark is not primarily merely a surname. [read post]
25 Jul 2008, 8:56 am
esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance plc [2008] EWCA Civ 842; [2008] WLR (D) 252 “Since a trade mark case which raised the critical issue of confusion would be assessed from the viewpoint of the average consumer, the cogency of the evidence of an expert as to his own opinion, where the tribunal was in a position to form its own view, was in real doubt. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 10:51 am
Thus, the second plea was upheld and the contested decision annulled (where the Board of Appeal had found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue as regards the goods in Class 33 covered by the contested mark and the ‘energy drinks’ in Class 32 covered by the earlier mark.) [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 1:00 pm
Earlier today, I had the pleasure of visiting Professor Jack Goldsmith’s “Foreign Relations Law” class, which is studying Hamdan v. [read post]
17 Jan 2020, 11:32 am
In Easy Group v Easy Fly [2020 ] EWHC 40 (Ch) Nugee J set aside such an order in a passing off, trade mark infringement and unlawful means conspiracy (and, you might add, kitchen sink) claim.Unlike my previous subject, Wheat v Google (in which judgment was given the following day), there were serious issues to be tried - that wasn't the problem. [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 4:43 pm
Erica VaccarelloBy the end of June, the US Supreme Court will have ruled on the registrability of scandalous and immoral marks in Iancu (USPTO) v Brunetti (No. 18-302). [read post]
