Search for: "Mark v. Mark"
Results 741 - 760
of 34,663
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Sep 2008, 8:37 am
The following reasoning was applied: When hearing an appeal for Trade Marks Registry, the court was conducting a review and not a re-hearing (REEF TM [2003] RPC 101) It is possible for a party to have made no real use of a mark for a period of 5 years, but to have retained goodwill in the name sufficient to support a passing off action (Ad-Lib Club v Granville [1972] PRC 673 and Sutherland v V2 Music Limited [2002] EMLR 2) In January 2006 the hearing… [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 12:02 pm
V. [read post]
10 Aug 2019, 11:41 am
In Coach, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Oct 2016, 6:18 pm
Author NuclearVaccumSource WikipediaCreative Commons Licence AMS Neve Ltd and Others v Heritage Audio S.L. and Another [2016] EWHC 2563 (IPEC) Mark Vallance Crabtree and Barnett Waddingham Trustees Limited are the registered proprietors of three trade marks for sound recording and processing that are used by AMS Neve Ltd. in its business. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 8:22 am
She also noted [at 50] that in Comic Enterprises Ltd v. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 8:15 pm
Simonian v. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 9:11 pm
Gear, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 4:38 pm
On 2 July 2019, Advocate General (AG) Bobek delivered his opinion in Case C-240/18 P Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), advising that the EUIPO’s decision to reject the registration of the trade mark ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ because it was too offensive should be annulled. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 1:57 pm
Justicia: Marking the Fortieth Anniversary of Roe v. [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 1:18 pm
The case is Chanel Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 9:42 pm
v=XjjC2YNpb18Shri M.P.Vijaya Kumar has right in his statement that one can have any amount of knowledge, but, the same may not materialize in getting marks unless one is good at the art of writing the examination. [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]
2 Feb 2015, 4:27 am
Last week, the 6th Circuit, in Yeager v. [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 3:36 pm
Today marks the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court's controversial Roe v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 4:42 pm
Price v. [read post]
16 Apr 2014, 6:30 am
Nike, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 7:33 am
" Heathcote Holdings Corp., Inc. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 1:11 am
Coach Services, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2022, 10:47 am
In contrast, the BoA found Volkswagen’s marks to be distinctive, “because the front of the van is characterized by a divided windshield and the curved V-shape on the bonnet with the circular headlights on each side” (paragraph 26).The BoA further held that the figurative and word elements in Pinball’s mark were “(visually) co-dominant” (paragraph 28), and that the front view of Volkswagen’s marks was “almost… [read post]
