Search for: "United States v. Mark"
Results 7241 - 7260
of 10,394
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Dec 2011, 5:49 am
The Panel noted that Complainant “is …. recognized as the owner of a family of R US marks under the United States trademark law. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 11:13 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 11:13 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 3:24 am
United States v. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 2:41 pm
See United States v. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 12:07 pm
The United States. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 11:51 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit released an opinion in United States v. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 5:28 am
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 11:34 am
The term infringing activity means an activity that (A) infringes a copyright under section 506 of title 17, United States Code; (B) violates section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or (C) uses counterfeit marks in a manner that violates section 32(1) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1113(1)). (5) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICE. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 8:00 am
The most noteworthy point in the argument came almost immediately after Benjamin Horwich rose to argue for the United States. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 4:16 pm
The Government v. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 6:30 am
United States, a case about the harmless error standard. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 3:30 am
In Babar Ahmad v. [read post]
4 Dec 2011, 9:36 pm
After Mr Justice Vos gave judgment in United Air Lines Inc v United Airways Limited and United Airways Bangladesh Limited (unreported, but noted here by the IPKat), the good judge refused permission to appeal on the basis that this was about the most irresistible application for summary judgment for trade mark infringement and passing off as you could hope to find, even taking into account the defendants' submissions in their skeleton… [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 9:39 pm
’” Upton, 466 U.S. at 734 (quoting United States v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 3:20 pm
And the United States Supreme Court, the Michigan Supreme Court, this Court, and courts of other states have treated the right as extending beyond firearms. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 6:30 am
Bill Olson – 1 Promoted Comment The United States government’s position in Arizona v. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 10:10 pm
His recent attempt to register “Eat More Kale” with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), however, irked Georgia-based Chick-fil-A, which sent him a cease-and-desist letter claiming the marks are confusingly similar, according to press accounts. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 4:30 pm
In addition to being strong and thoughtful statements of United States policy, these two speeches provide the framework within which my observations here can be better understood. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 6:25 am
NPR’s Fresh Air discusses United States v. [read post]
