Search for: "Mark A. Strauss"
Results 61 - 80
of 259
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Aug 2023, 11:03 am
If a mark already had some reputation and, due to renewed efforts, is gaining more and more reputation in the interim, it would be contrary to the logic of the Levi Strauss / Casucci case that the proprietor cannot profit from that increased reputation.It is interesting to take into account the EUIPO Guidelines on this matter. [read post]
10 Oct 2006, 8:48 am
Charlie Strauss and Andrew Appel have more thorough criticisms, which I’ll get to in future posts. [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 9:49 am
" But as Lynn Litchfield, the former chaplain at the prison described in a recent article in Newsweek, Lewis "seemed slow and overly eager to please — an easy mark, in other words, for a con. [read post]
4 Jan 2023, 6:28 am
Mark Stodder The Goliath is the Washington, D.C. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 3:40 am
Levi Strauss & Co. v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 11:58 am
With an investigation over U.S. cotton subsidies underway in Peru, the leading trade group for the cotton industry in the United States has turned to Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington for help. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 11:58 am
With an investigation over U.S. cotton subsidies underway in Peru, the leading trade group for the cotton industry in the United States has turned to Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington for help. [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 1:43 pm
The court disagreed, finding that Strauss’ ads used more of the marks than was reasonably necessary, and even used the marks to refer to its own product without mentioning the phrase “MagicSleeve. [read post]
10 Nov 2013, 7:36 am
At this point Verena observed that it's not just a question of trade marks becoming property rights -- trade marks and indeed trade mark applications are actual property rights that are respected as human rights legislation. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 12:22 pm
" Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report. [read post]
29 Dec 2009, 4:40 pm
The Court referred to the 2006 decision of Levi Strauss & Co. v. [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 12:15 pm
The authors in the series have included truly remarkable scholars, including not only the individuals you mention above, but also Cass Sunstein, Pam Karlan, Lee Bollinger, Mark Tushnet, Michael Klarman, and on and on and on. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 4:30 am
J. 277 (2010).Mark Seidenfeld, Substituting Substantive for Procedural Reiew of Guidance Documents (FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 479, 2011), available at SSRN. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 3:35 am
The 9th Circuit's recent decision in Levi Strauss & Co. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2023, 6:07 am
Goliath battle” — a reference to a guest post about the litigation published on this blog by Mark Stodder, president of Xcential. [read post]
28 Jul 2022, 6:00 am
Ashley Moran is a Postdoctoral Fellow with the Comparative Constitutions Project and Distinguished Scholar with UT’s Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law. [read post]
24 Jul 2018, 1:01 am
Strauss Festival Presents: Postcards from the Grand Tour Continue reading [read post]
19 May 2010, 11:13 pm
As affirmed by Gummow J in Wingate Marketing Pty Ltd v Levi Strauss & Co[30], “whilst a trade mark remains on goods, it functions as an indicator of the person who attached or authorised the initial use of the mark”. [read post]
17 Jul 2014, 2:51 pm
Citing the VITAFRUIT decision (Case T-203/02), the Court said:When assessing whether use of the trade mark is genuine, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial exploitation of the mark is real, particularly whether such use is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or create a share in the market for the products or services protected by the mark, the nature of those products or… [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 3:18 am
Among the many things he said are these:* Citing Case C-145/05 Levi Strauss & Co v Casucci SpA [2006] ECR I-3703. he observed that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had held that the question of trade mark infringement fell to be assessed as at the operative date, this being the date from which the use of the sign began. [read post]
