Search for: "Mark v. Mark" Results 641 - 660 of 34,663
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Dec 2007, 6:40 pm
As was stated by Lamer J. in Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 9:23 am
Boston Red Sox Baseball Club Limited Partnership v. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 7:35 am
NVidia v Hardware Labs [2016] EWHC 3135(December 2016)This was the exam question posed here. [read post]
21 Dec 2022, 8:22 am by Marcel Pemsel
In its judgment Neoperl v EUIPO (Representation of a cylindrical sanitary insert part) the General Court had the opportunity to review the rejection of an application for a position tactile mark.BackgroundOn 1 September 2016, the applicant filed an EU trade mark application for the following sign -- In the application, the mark was referred to as a ’position tactile mark’ and described as follows:The mark is a position tactile mark. [read post]
30 Jan 2020, 6:51 am
The IPKat has now had some time to put its razor-sharp fangs into the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)'s decision in C-371/18 Sky v. [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 9:32 pm by Helen Macpherson
The decision in Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 83 clarifies the standing of the widely cited and followed decision in Crazy Ron’s Communications Pty Limited v Mobileworld Communications Pty Limited [2004] FCAFC 196. [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 9:32 pm by Helen Macpherson
The decision in Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 83 clarifies the standing of the widely cited and followed decision in Crazy Ron’s Communications Pty Limited v Mobileworld Communications Pty Limited [2004] FCAFC 196. [read post]