Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 7461 - 7480
of 21,693
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2022, 9:01 pm
In Badgerow v. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 4:52 am
” 1Fox News Network, LLC v. [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 1:00 pm
4) ISPs should bear implementation costs ... and may think of preventative filtering as a cheaper solutionSimilarly to what stated in his earlier judgment in 20C Fox v BT (No 2), Arnold J took the view that "the rightholders should pay the costs of an unopposed application ... [read post]
1 Feb 2021, 11:27 am
Singh considers two cases, Bayer v Natco and Novartis AG v Union of India, to see how compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals and evergreening of patents are dealt with by the Indian judiciary.Part VII “Lores of IP during wartime”Arpan Banerjee and Dana Beldiman, in Chapter 14, “International Trade Mark Enforcement Under the Versailles Treaty: A Case Study of Sanatogen”, discuss how the Bombay High Court applied IP-related provisions of the… [read post]
6 May 2021, 4:54 pm
United States v. [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 5:32 am
Equinox Hotel Management, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 12:32 pm
Comphy Co. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2013, 10:45 am
The Second Circuit's Decision in Rogers v. [read post]
6 Feb 2017, 3:41 am
| The champagne of trade mark disputes | Around the IP Blogs! [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 5:20 am
“The fact that the plaintiff subsequently was unhappy with the settlement [she] obtained . . . does not rise to the level of legal malpractice” (Katsoris v Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 AD3d at 1506 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 758; Holschauer v Fisher, 5 AD3d 553, 554). [read post]
14 Dec 2007, 1:00 am
, (IMPACT), (IPR-Helpdesk), (I/PUpdates), New OHIM guidelines on opposition, cancellation and international marks: (CATCH US IF YOU CAN!!!) [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 1:37 am
AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors, heard 5 June 2014. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 6:06 pm
Billing Fraud: VIRGINIA FEDERAL JUDGE WON'T DISMISS MEDICARE FRAUD DEFENDANTS, United States v. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 4:05 am
” Briefly: At Education Week, Mark Walsh examines the history of the “’baby Blaine’ amendments—state constitutional measures that in some form or other bar government aid to religious denominations and religious schools” — at issue in Espinoza v. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 4:19 am
The first is Murphy v. [read post]
4 Oct 2024, 5:28 am
[internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). [read post]
15 Jun 2017, 5:15 am
He states that because the respondent had no intention of infringing the trade marks (because of the franchisor's confusing requests), there is no trade mark infringement. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 7:59 am
It's A 10, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 10:43 am
And here the AG brought trade mark law into the picture. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 5:43 pm
The Supreme Court will hear the libel appeal in Serafin v. [read post]
