Search for: "State v. Mark A. Humphrey"
Results 41 - 60
of 127
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jul 2019, 3:00 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 8:09 am
Rubin, Missing the (Certification) Mark: How The Lanham Act Unnecessarily Restricts State and Local Governments as Certifiers, 71 Stan. [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 2:01 am
Court: United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
28 May 2019, 4:07 am
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
17 May 2019, 6:55 am
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
14 May 2019, 7:29 am
Nixon doubled down on the Southern Strategy during the general election, capturing six southern states compared to one for Democrat Hubert Humphrey. [read post]
8 May 2019, 12:21 am
The plaintiff Tea Board, a state agency established to promote cultivation and trade of tea, held registrations for ‘Darjeeling’ for tea as a geographical indication (“GI”) and a certification mark. [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]
19 Apr 2019, 3:32 am
The Eleventh Circuit agreed with that conclusion based on the plain language of the licensing agreement and affirmed the lower court’s decision (Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 12:32 am
In affirming a district court’s dismissal because use of the marks constituted nominative fair use, the appeals court concluded that Applied’s service was not readily identifiable without use of the trademarks, the seminar creators used only so much of the trademarks as was reasonably necessary, and use of the trademarks did not suggest sponsorship or endorsement (Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 8:14 am
Second, in a 1935 Supreme Court case called Humphrey’s Executor v. [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 2:14 am
EUIPO, long before the Levola decision, had already stated its “distaste” for scent marks, as clearly indicated in its Guidelines:” Article 3(9) EUTMIR clarifies that the filing of a sample or a specimen does not constitute a proper representation of a trade mark. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 6:56 am
Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 18-1152, 15 November 2018 appeared first on Kluwer Trademark Blog. [read post]
16 Nov 2018, 8:00 am
Humphreys in Fairfax County, Virginia, before being honorably discharged on April 8, 1919. [read post]
13 Nov 2018, 12:24 am
(“SMRI”) did not provide the jury with sufficient proof that its unregistered marks “Sturgis,” “Sturgis Motorcycle Rally,” and “Sturgis Rally & Races” marks were valid marks that acquired secondary meaning, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled, reversing a district court’s judgment that a gift shop and three individuals willfully infringed and diluted the marks. [read post]
25 Oct 2018, 7:13 am
Many people across the world are familiar with Obelix, a beloved character in the French comic book series ‘Asterix’, who fell into a cauldron of magic potion as a baby and as a result is in a permanent state of superhuman strength. [read post]
22 Oct 2018, 1:43 am
Indeed, both Upjohn and before Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others v Paranova (joined Cases C-427/93, 429/93 and 436/93) had indicated that “the requirement of artificial partitioning of the markets does not imply that the importer must demonstrate (emphasis added) that, by putting an identical product on the market in varying forms of packaging in different Member States, the trade mark proprietor deliberately sought to partition the markets between Member… [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 6:08 am
Frito-Lay North America, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2017-1959, 04 October 2018 appeared first on Kluwer Trademark Blog. [read post]
10 Oct 2018, 2:58 am
Further, the marks were visually dissimilar, and The Row Kitchen and Pub offered very little evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the Whiskey Row mark created the likelihood of confusion (The Row, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2018, 5:54 am
In Tinker v. [read post]
