Search for: "US v. Rogers"
Results 741 - 760
of 3,150
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Oct 2020, 11:20 am
While ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the district court held that the Rogers test, which is used to balance the interests between trademark law and the First Amendment, was inapplicable because the toy is not an expressive work. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 1:24 pm
As Jack and Steve have both noted, yesterday the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Lebron v. [read post]
24 Apr 2023, 10:20 am
In reaching its decision, the Ninth Circuit found that Bad Spaniels is an expressive work and applied the test set forth in Rogers v. [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 1:38 pm
Eliot Kim summarized the Second Circuit’s ruling in Linde v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 4:00 am
[8] Doe VIII v Exxon Mobil Corporation (DC Cir, 8 July 2011) slip op, page 50 (Rogers J) [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 12:51 pm
Think Rubix, LLC v. [read post]
16 Mar 2016, 11:18 am
Preserve Poway v. [read post]
25 Dec 2009, 9:39 am
(Rogers v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 4:16 am
There is a webcast of the hearing (best viewed using internet explorer). [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 4:13 am
Rescue Response Group Inc. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 12:18 pm
Rogers, 440 U. [read post]
26 Sep 2009, 2:44 pm
Rogers v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 10:39 am
NFL and Anthony v. [read post]
18 May 2018, 1:11 pm
The occasion was a hearing on a motion to dismiss in Cockrum v. [read post]
12 Oct 2023, 8:38 am
Green v. [read post]
3 Jun 2023, 3:36 am
in the grand scheme of reviled Supreme Court justices, William Rehnquist was no Roger Taney. [read post]
2 Mar 2023, 7:01 am
Neither trade mark covered digital assets.The French fashion house sued Hermés for trade mark infringement, essentially referring to a risk of confusion for consumers, as well as trade mark dilution and cybersquatting.Defendant Rothschild mainly centred his counterarguments on the Roger test (as established in 1989 case Rogers v. [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 4:15 am
In Rogers v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 6:26 am
It held that the district court’s instruction was proper because it “paraphrase[d]” the Supreme Court’s opinion in Rogers v. [read post]
