Search for: "STATE v. PUMA"
Results 41 - 60
of 62
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Nov 2021, 1:58 pm
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. 21-577Issue: Whether, under Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Dec 2022, 5:02 am
The defendant was Puma, who had launched a clothing line in collaboration with their brand ambassador, Neymar. [read post]
15 Sep 2022, 6:16 am
PUMA SE et al. v. [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 3:00 am
Sometimes elegance is refusal.The average consumer and the nature of the purchasing actAs per Sabel BV v Puma AG, the average consumer normally perceives a trade mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse the various details. [read post]
16 May 2011, 1:10 am
Mountain States (Patently-O) Court of Appeal of Michigan – Malpractice: Failure to thoroughly advise in settlement negotiations: Viking Corp. v. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 5:46 am
Edwards Lifesciences AG v Cook Biotech Incorporated (IPKat) England’s new shirt sponsors? [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 9:07 am
(Spicy IP) ‘Tirupati laddus’ granted registration as a geographical indication (Spicy IP) Malaysia Malaysian Federal Court: McDonald’s final defeat by McCurry in trade mark battle (IPKat) Netherlands District Court of The Hague: Procter & Gamble companies win trade mark infringement summary proceedings brought by Debonairre against their Naomi Campbell product line (Class 46) South Africa Copycat success - Supreme Court of… [read post]
21 Jun 2009, 10:00 pm
(ITC 337 Law Blog) Academic perspectives on issues raised in Bilski case (IP Osgoode) Star Scientific teaches a valuable lesson to all IP share investors (IAM) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: Appealing BPAI rejections to the Federal Circuit: In re Baggett (nonprecedential) (Patently-O) CAFC: Preliminary injunctions and obviousness in design patent law: Titan Tire Corp v Case New Holland, Inc (Patently-O) District Court N D Illinois: Post-filing assignment cannot create standing:… [read post]
15 Oct 2010, 5:29 am
While the list will close at midnight on 31 October, the IPKat can tell you that the five front-runners, in descending order, are Sabel v Puma, Canon, Baby-Dry, Lloyd and Silhouette. [read post]
8 Jun 2021, 11:32 am
The end result of that litigation was that both parties agreed there was a contract between them and that it was governed by the law of the state of Pennsylvania (where it had been litigated). [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 12:23 am
(Docket Report) District Court W D Pennsylvania: Intent to deceive element of false marking claim cannot be inferred from length of time since patent expired: United States of America, et. al. v. [read post]
2 Aug 2009, 12:42 pm
Further, the test as to whether confusion has occurred is set down by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as per Case C-2511/95 Sabel BV v Puma AG [1998] European Trade Marks Report 1. [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 1:20 am
’“ 3) International Investment Arbitration, the European Patent Office, and the Future Unified Patent Court by Thomas Musmann “Since the Eli Lilly v. [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 1:25 am
’“ 3) International Investment Arbitration, the European Patent Office, and the Future Unified Patent Court by Thomas Musmann “Since the Eli Lilly v. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 8:57 pm
The case of Adcock Ingram v Cipla Medpro reconsidered the notion that pharmaceuticals sold on prescription are less likely to be confused because they are dispensed by trained professionals in regulated circumstances. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 3:57 am
(IP Spotlight) (Excess copyright) (Patent Docs) (Spicy IP) (IAM) (Patent Baristas) (Intellectual Property Watch) CAFC greatly limits software and business method patents: In re Bilksi (IP Law Observer) (Chicago IP Litigation Blog) (IP Spotlight) (The Prior Art) (Patent Baristas) (EFF) (Patent Prospector) (Technological Innovation and Intellectual Property) (Philip Brooks' Patent Infringement Updates) (Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog) (IP Updates) (Daily Dose of IP) (PLI) (Green Patent… [read post]
10 Aug 2017, 12:56 pm
Only 4 cited © cases: Mazer v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 10:27 am
Puma, No. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 10:27 am
Puma, No. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 1:36 pm
’ paper by Graeme Clark SC (IP Down Under) Full Federal Court decision concerning brand reputation in context of ‘lookalike’ products and famous brands: Hansen Beverage Company v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd (Mallesons Stephen Jaques) Federal Court holds that grace period applicable to a ‘parent patent’ is different to that of its divisional ‘child’: Mont Adventure Equipment v Phoenix Leisure Group (IP Down… [read post]
