Search for: "Bank of America v. Marks" Results 61 - 80 of 482
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jun 2007, 4:32 pm
Director, Division of Taxation, and MBNA America Bank v. [read post]
26 May 2019, 2:13 pm
Rosie Burbidge reports on the Invista v Botes saga. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 1:28 pm
Marie-Andree Weiss of The 1709 Blog discusses the Paramount Pictures Corp. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2021, 9:30 pm by ernst
The National Security Archive et. al. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 4:56 am by Joe Palazzolo
Today marks the first publication of Law Blog’s Weekly Docket. [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 6:48 pm
The DOW wouldn't cross the 1,000 mark again until late in 1982. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 3:14 am
Quinney College of Law, Salt Lake City, Utah]: Retail Royalty Company v Hawke & Company Outfitters LLC, Opposition No. 91197848 [Opposition to registration of the mark shown first below, for "Jackets, shirts, pants, swimwear, socks, hats, belts and scarves," on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the three marks shown next below, for various clothing items]. [read post]
19 Nov 2017, 5:45 am by SHG
And now that their passports will be marked, so when they check in to the George V in Paris, the bellhop can be on guard. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 4:04 pm
So we have an account that we are not going to use the money for in case we ever have to escape America and it’s in Switzerland and you must never tell anybody about this account. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 1:16 am
COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUITIntellectual PropertySuit Over Google's Sale of Mark as 'Keyword' Sending Searchers to Competitors' Ads Reinstated Rescuecom Corp., plaintiff-appellant v. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 2:51 am by John L. Welch
Dita, Inc., Oppositions Nos. 91167828 and 91170265 [Section 2(d) consolidated opposition to registration of DITA for jewelry, leather goods, and clothing, based on the alleged prior use of the identical mark and the mark DITA DE LEON for the same "categories" of goods].August 25, 2011 - 2 PM: Ahold Licensing, S.A. v. [read post]