Search for: "United States v. Mark"
Results 8081 - 8100
of 10,394
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jan 2011, 1:19 pm
” United States v. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 4:00 am
To understand the role the police play in criminal justice, he cites the judgment of Justice A.N.Mulla of the Allahabad High Court(State of Uttar Pradesh v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 4:06 am
Although the tires include markings required by the U.S. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 3:30 am
In addition, some early empirical studies used the United States Patent Quarterly as their source (see, e.g., John R. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 2:22 am
Respondent "essentially argues that petitioner lacks standing because it neither pleaded use nor registration of its mark in the United States, nor otherwise pleaded any trademark rights in its mark that are protectable in the United States. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 9:17 am
Complainant owns rights to the 123INKJETS mark, which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 3:20 am
(Docket Report) N D Illinois: Local patent rules do not apply to false marking with expired patents: Zojo Sol’ns., Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 6:47 pm
State, 959 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2007), and Nixon v. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 11:56 am
The United States of America was not founded to control. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 7:31 am
United Emergency Animal Clinic, Inc., 390 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir.2004) (considering the applicability of § 541.304 to veterinarians); Parker v. [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 1:07 pm
United States v. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 3:11 am
The Copyright police are coming (TorrentFreak) US Trademarks & Domain Names District Court N D Illinois: Google is the senior user of ANDROID mark: Specht v Google (Property, intangible) [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 4:08 pm
United States, 752 F.2d 1538, 1551 (Fed. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 8:36 am
Schwarzenegger in the federal United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 10:12 am
(My one quibble is that I’m not positive that Justice Alito’s concurrence is necessarily the “controlling opinion” in Morse for Marks v. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 4:04 pm
: The need to encourage legal entrepreneurship (Spicy IP) State’s copyright not exempt under RTI Act: Delhi Metro Rail Corp. v. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 6:38 am
My ex-wife used to roll her eyes when I said, as one does, non haec in foedera veni [Lord Radcliffe in Davis Contractors Ltd v. [read post]
1 Jan 2011, 10:23 am
A mention in this regard may also be made of the developments in the United States and United Kingdom where this right has had [read post]
31 Dec 2010, 10:38 am
United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001)). [read post]
31 Dec 2010, 2:00 am
’ See [Mark L. [read post]
