Search for: "Henkell v. Henkell"
Results 61 - 80
of 99
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Nov 2021, 12:39 am
To be a pattern mark: EUIPO v. [read post]
3 Feb 2022, 7:03 am
For example, in Coca-Cola Co. v. [read post]
15 Feb 2007, 6:39 am
The Court of Justice has handed down its judgment in Case C-292/05 Irini Lechouritou and Others v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 9:10 am
However, the assessment of the inherent distinctive character of a sign must be made only by reference to the goods and services and the perception of the sign in question (Henkel v OHIM, C-456/01 P at para. 35). [read post]
14 Feb 2020, 4:27 am
Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence)• Communications and cooperation between courts across borders• UNCITRAL Working Group V discussions and updates• Hot topics and works-in-progress Please note that the above list of topics is not exclusive. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 12:31 pm
Another group of courts found that the exclusion was ambiguous or required to be interpreted based on history of the exclusion and looked at the presentations of the insurance industry to the various insurance commissioners in the various states “Doer v. [read post]
26 Jan 2018, 12:21 am
Yesterday, the ECJ has rendered its decision in Case C-498/16 Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Limited. [read post]
20 Nov 2019, 8:49 am
Jurata provided a quick overview of the FTC v. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 10:27 am
Henkel in 1901, and followed from the Court’s constitutional analysis in Baldwin v. [read post]
10 Feb 2008, 9:33 am
Henkel, Docket No. 103946 (Ill. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 9:33 am
Henkel, Docket No. 103946 (Ill. [read post]
28 Sep 2017, 6:43 am
See Henkel v. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 11:12 am
Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 76 (1906). [read post]
27 Oct 2020, 5:01 am
" And in Cross v. [read post]
27 Oct 2020, 5:01 am
" And in Cross v. [read post]
17 Aug 2016, 6:55 am
Henkel, supra. [read post]
18 Oct 2009, 11:27 am
Eagle v. [read post]
12 Sep 2010, 10:45 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 6:07 am
In Bongrain SA’s Trade Mark Application [2004] EWCA Civ 1690 at [26]-[28], Jacobs LJ had, interpreting various European case law including Joined Cases C-456/01P and C-457/01 P Henkel v OHIM EU:C:2004:258, rejected the idea that a “fancy” or unusual shape of goods would automatically be taken by the public as a trade mark denoting trade origin. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 8:24 pm
Jason Jordan, University of North Texas: De Jure Blackness: Racialization in Brown v. [read post]
