Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 681 - 700
of 19,775
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Dec 2020, 3:46 am
Corp. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 4:26 am
PepsiCo, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 3:51 pm
Salters v. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 3:15 am
United States Postal Service v. [read post]
19 May 2015, 6:44 am
[Referring to the provisions of the Regulation that permit transfer, securitisation and licensing, the first sentence of Article 23(1) states that "... such an act, before it is so entered [in the Register of Community trade marks], shall have effect vis-à-vis third parties who have acquired rights in the trade mark after the date of that act but who knew of the act at the date on which the rights were acquired"]. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 10:59 am
" Compare Levi Strauss v. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 10:04 am
The first, State v. [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 10:55 am
In Brown v. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 12:59 pm
Gravelle v. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 9:30 pm
Samantha Barbas, State University of New York Buffalo Law School, has posted When Privacy Almost Won: Time, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 6:56 am
” United States v. [read post]
16 Nov 2008, 11:36 am
In this piece I will discuss how if at all this provision has been altered by the case of Proctor and Gamble v Office for Harmonisation In the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) ; Known simply as "Baby Dry"; and subsequent cases. [read post]
1 May 2016, 4:32 am
Some of you certainly remember the Google v Vuitton case decided by the CJEU some years ago now, in 2010, which was a case about trade mark infringement. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 9:00 am
It did so largely on the basis of its interpretation of Article 9(1) of Directive 89/104, the key wording of which is "has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of a later trade mark registered in that Member State while being aware of such use". [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 1:20 pm
The provision states: "13A. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 7:50 am
Here is the abstract: Professor Mark Tushnet contends that Roper v. [read post]
11 Jul 2007, 10:44 am
When you're litigating against the United States, there are lots and lots of ways to lose. [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 1:52 pm
Nando’s states that their marks are infringed on the outside sign, inside the Fernando’s restaurant and on the menu.Aziz claims that he is being bullied into changing his company’s name and had no intention of copying Nando’s - he wanted to sell Peri Peri chicken, being of Portuguese origin, using the Portuguese chicken as a symbol of the cuisine. [read post]
9 Sep 2019, 9:15 am
ThermoLife Int’l, L.L.C. v. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 8:14 am
(quotation marks omitted). [read post]
