Search for: "P. v. Marks"
Results 61 - 80
of 3,839
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Dec 2007, 9:12 am
’s rights in the famous mark BARBIE were not enough to for our Supreme Court to find a likelihood of confusion with a restaurant operating under the name Barbie’s (Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22). [read post]
19 Jan 2007, 3:14 am
In Kohler Co. v. [read post]
28 Sep 2020, 2:46 pm
’” [Id., at p. 9 (quoting Gonzales v. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 3:37 am
Simonian v. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 8:17 am
In the case of HM Advocate v P an interview took place, which, it is accepted, was in violation of the Article 6 rights of the suspect, in that it was absent legal assistance. [read post]
3 Oct 2016, 2:18 pm
Diaz v. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 11:16 am
Al Reasonover v. [read post]
Illinois Courts Grapple With Pleading Standard for Intent to Deceive Element of False Marking Claims
3 Sep 2010, 6:37 am
P. 9(b) standards to Section 292(b) complaints. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 10:35 am
Great sleuthing from Mark Joseph Stern: The post Wow: Trump v. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 2:58 am
A few hours before the World Cup’s kick-off match, the General Court wrote another Chapter of the “R10” saga, concerning a trade mark related to one of the funniest Brazilian football players ever [Case T‑137/09 RENV, Nike International Ltd v OHIM, available in Frenchand Spanish]. [read post]
15 Sep 2015, 4:48 pm
Laycock, Douglas and Gergen, Mark P. and Rendleman, Doug, Spokeo v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 4:37 pm
P. 9(b) in a false marking action. [read post]
1 Dec 2017, 3:16 am
Patron Spirits International AG v. [read post]
12 Nov 2022, 10:45 am
In the didactic genre (or subgenre), “mirrors for princes,” philosophers instruct kings and princes how to rule. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 10:00 am
Professor Mark P. [read post]
26 Apr 2014, 3:54 am
The court found that simply because the applicant had applied to register the mark two weeks after discussions with the respondent, had delayed enforcing the mark and had only filed its application sometime after it began using the mark, the applicant’s conduct approached “sharp practice”.Finally and most interestingly, the court considered the tricky question of whether a distributor, licensee or some other party besides the source of the… [read post]
24 May 2021, 8:58 am
Pure & Simple Concepts v. 1 H W Management (Finchley Group) (Fed. [read post]
12 Jun 2017, 9:01 am
(p. 128). [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 6:28 am
For example:Case C‑136/02 P, Mag Instrument v OHIM used to be [2004] ECR I‑9165 but it's now EU:C:2004:592Case C‑25/05 P, Storck v OHIM used to be [2006] I-5719 but it's now EU:C:2006:422Case C‑106/03 P, Vedial v OHIM used to be [2004] ECR I-9573 but it's now EU:C:2004:611 He was a bit disconcerted by this, for a number of reasons, including these:He's not sure what happened to the old… [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 6:30 am
Circuit Court of Appeals on 30 December, Pom Wonderful LLC v Hubbard et al, No. 14-55253. [read post]
