Search for: "State v. Mark" Results 7521 - 7540 of 19,256
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 May 2017, 5:53 am
This is subject to the parties having been given the right to be heard on the new case law, if it is presented for the first time before the GC.This is precisely what occurred in case T-453/11, Szajner v OHMI - Forge de Laguiole (LAGUIOLE) [reported by The IPKat here]. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 2:42 pm
App. at 168 (Order Granting Mot. to Suppress at 7) (internal quotation marks omitted).The district court thereafter set the matter for trial. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 5:07 am by Amy Howe
At Education Week, Mark Walsh has the story on a PBS documentary on a Florida man who is seeking a new sentence in light of the Court’s 2010 decision in Graham v. [read post]
1 Jan 2013, 5:42 pm
  YSL's Tribute shoe R is for red:  Last Thursday, the final order in the infamous Louboutin v Yves Saint Laurent case involving Louboutin’s red soles trade mark was entered in district court in the Southern District of New York (see previous AmeriKat reporting on the case here). [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 8:25 am by Gabriel Chin
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard argument in United States v. [read post]
21 Sep 2008, 2:36 pm
The Eleventh Circuit has stated that such marks are "relatively strong. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 5:25 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Provision was that owner of a mark protected in one state who knows of use in another state shall have the right to oppose use or registration on proof that the registrant had knowledge of the existence and continuous use of the mark in any contracting states. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 1:29 pm by Bexis
International Insurance Co., 354 F.3d 568, 577 (6th Cir. 2004) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see Ventas, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 12:06 pm by Wells Bennett
The government has filed its opposition brief in United States v. [read post]
13 Sep 2016, 7:30 am by The Public Employment Law Press
However, her Title VII claim against the Assistant Secretary of State in his official capacity, as well as her Section 1983 and state law claims, were dismissed because of Eleventh Amendment immunity (Canfield v. [read post]