Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 701 - 720
of 19,464
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Apr 2010, 4:22 pm
For example, in Forest Group, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 4:43 am
Supreme Court, United States v. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 8:38 am
The CJEU today (in case in C-421/13, Apple Inc. v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, see here) confirmed that the representation of the layout of a retail store, such as the one depicted below, may - subject to certain conditions - be registered as a trade mark. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 3:44 am
Mills Inc. v. [read post]
8 Mar 2024, 7:31 am
However, In Arsenal, the ECJ (as it then was) stated that the exclusive rights granted to a trade mark proprietor are “… to enable the trade mark proprietor to protect his specific interests as proprietor, that is, to ensure that the trade mark can fulfil its functions. [read post]
21 Nov 2014, 2:46 am
So influential is this debate that, in his editorial capacity, he sometimes receives articles submitted for publication in JIPLP that state it as being axiomatic that a function of trade mark law (and often the only function of trade mark law) is the protection of the consumer.It's worth taking a look at the law in wider terms. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 7:57 pm
The Utah Supreme Court has issued its decision in the case Haik v. [read post]
9 Oct 2012, 3:00 am
s Baldwin v. [read post]
28 Oct 2024, 7:48 am
Furthermore, the appellate court reiterated that financial difficulties and litigation do not excuse nonuse or toll the running of the nonuse period (To-Ricos, Ltd. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2010, 12:59 pm
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s December 2009 “false marking” decision in Forest Group, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 12:55 pm
This morning the Court released a unanimous opinion in Evenwel v. [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 2:07 pm
" United States v. [read post]
14 Apr 2021, 8:21 am
So, represented by a lawyer (Mark Javitch), she sued Twitter for violating her civil rights. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 2:52 am
In-N-Out Burgers v. [read post]
1 Sep 2024, 6:30 am
This past June, in Ohio v. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 9:11 am
"[Plaintiff] argues it should not have to pay any costs because it was acting in the public interest by bringing the lawsuit as a qui tam relator to help the United States enforce the false marking statute; and if anything, it should only be required to pay half of any allowable costs. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 7:32 am
On May 28, 2014, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in the case of State of Ohio v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 6:53 am
Essentially, the regulation requires representations of marks to be clear and distinct. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 3:51 am
Simonian v. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 9:17 am
Kaplinsky and Mark J. [read post]
