Search for: "P. v. Marks"
Results 41 - 60
of 3,839
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jul 2014, 2:15 am
" (p.21). [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 11:00 am
Mark Lanier, of Vioxx fame; Mark P. [read post]
24 Nov 2006, 2:41 pm
Kobylarz discusses Mark Lemley's change in position on obviousness in KSR v. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 3:01 pm
Co. v. [read post]
1 May 2008, 9:05 am
Gillette and P&G. [read post]
21 Dec 2006, 11:26 am
Diamond Dallas Page v. [read post]
[Eugene Volokh] Mark McCloskey, Pardoned for Brandishing Guns at Protesters, Can't Get the Guns Back
26 Dec 2023, 2:50 pm
Dowd and joined by Judges John P. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 6:49 am
The Court then summarized the case law regarding the required proof:In addition, according to case-law, although it must be proved that a mark has acquired distinctive character through use throughout the European Union, the same types of evidence do not have to be provided in respect of each Member State (...).Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly held that there was insufficient proof of distinctive character acquired through use of a mark throughout the European Union where… [read post]
25 May 2021, 3:25 am
Pure & Simple Concepts, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 3:14 pm
In truth, though, for slogan marks the public’s perception is not the same as for other types of marks and, therefore, assessing their distinctiveness results more difficult.In the light of Audi v OHIM the General Court addressed some typical issues affecting slogan marks. [read post]
26 Aug 2007, 11:44 am
I suspect this Notice was motivated by the decision in the See You In - Canadian Athletes Fund Corporation v. [read post]
24 May 2012, 6:19 am
196/11 P, Formula One Licensing BV v OHIM, Global Sports Media Ltd, on an opposition relating to a Community trade mark that was filed a little over eight years ago and which may still have a few more years' mileage to it. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 7:28 am
Luka v. [read post]
28 Oct 2007, 9:51 am
Beteiligungs KG 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]
7 Mar 2012, 3:21 am
P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Simonian’s false patent marking case with prejudice. [read post]
4 Feb 2010, 5:00 am
The article is by Mark P. [read post]
17 Aug 2013, 11:33 am
Here is the abstract: In marking the fiftieth anniversary of Brady v. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 10:02 am
Mark Egerman (Fellow, Georgetown University Law Center) has posted Roe v. [read post]
2 Mar 2019, 2:17 am
In this regard, the threshold for distinctiveness is not dependent on the public’s level of attention (Smart Technologies v OHIM, C‑311/11 P).Lack of distinctive character of the mark applied forAs regards the issue of distinctive character, the applicant maintained that the relevant public would perceive the mark as the letter ‘v’ for ‘vericiguat’ rather than a representation of a heart. [read post]
