Search for: "Good v. Good"
Results 6841 - 6860
of 76,266
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Sep 2019, 6:46 am
Google because it only survived the plaintiff’s claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am
In reviewing Lord Hoffmann's reasons in OBG for imposing the requirement, they listed seven good reasons for it, which should be enough for anyone. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 1:08 pm
Iowa 2014); East Sussex Children Servs. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 2:11 pm
In Lee v. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 11:15 am
OPM and the unconstitutional conditions argument in Mass v. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 3:05 am
Tags: Article V, constitutional law, juries [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 7:50 am
v=gkeCNeHcmXY [read post]
23 May 2019, 9:41 am
Supreme Court’s South Dakota v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 5:09 am
v=Hjhi_FHxY8k [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 5:30 am
In comparing the goods involved, the Court noted that the Board of Appeal in fact compared the goods at issue with those of the mark applied for in Classes 3 and 21, in the same way as the Opposition Division. [read post]
22 Jul 2016, 4:27 am
Phoenix Entertainment Partners, LLC v. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 1:07 pm
Not such a good day for the law firm. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 3:06 am
Cir. 2009); Torres v. [read post]
3 May 2022, 2:58 am
McDonald’s has filed applications for McDONALD’s, MCCAFE, and its M Logo covering, among other things, “[v]irtual food and beverage products” in Class 9 and “[o]perating a virtual restaurant featuring actual food and beverages” in Class 43 (see here, here and here). 2. [read post]
2 May 2016, 3:15 am
Mini Melts, Inc. v Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Opposition No. 91173963 (April 27, 2016) [precedential].Likelihood of Confusion: Not surprisingly, the Board found the marks to be virtually identical, and therefore this first du Pont factor weighed heavily in opposer's favor. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 12:52 pm
Alaskasland.com, LLC v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 9:10 am
However, the assessment of the inherent distinctive character of a sign must be made only by reference to the goods and services and the perception of the sign in question (Henkel v OHIM, C-456/01 P at para. 35). [read post]
26 Jan 2018, 6:38 am
Nix v. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 4:10 am
The case, Utah v. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 1:24 pm
On March 24, 2016, the Supreme Court of Florida issued its opinion in the case of Paton v. [read post]
