Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 8521 - 8540
of 21,695
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Oct 2016, 3:06 am
Wise F&I, LLC; Financial Gap, Administrator LLC; Vehicle Service Administrator LLC; and Administration America LLC v. [read post]
16 Oct 2016, 7:22 pm
Mark Frey). [read post]
15 Oct 2016, 12:38 pm
Maryland, supra (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 10:05 pm
Postmaster General (10th Cir., October 12, 2016) (affirming dismissal of Ayalla's claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Equal Pay Act, for failure to state a claim)Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease*Kirkpatrick v. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 12:20 pm
The Board explained this principle in Corporate Document Services Inc. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 12:20 pm
The Board explained this principle in Corporate Document Services Inc. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 8:12 am
See also, United States v. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 7:02 am
Another court has stated that “[t]he strength and recognizability of the mark may make it easier for the audience to realize that the use is a parody and a joke on the qualities embodied” in the trademark. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 4:28 am
Representatives David Cicilline (D-RI) and Mark Takano (D-Calif.). [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 3:53 am
Harris and Bethune-Hill v. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 3:22 am
Daniels v. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 3:15 am
In April 2016, The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a precedential decision canceling the trademark registration of a subsidiary because the parent company was the only one using the mark... [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 12:02 pm
Within a few days of each other, the Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had Apple v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 4:09 am
Constitution Daily reports on Hernandez v. [read post]
12 Oct 2016, 8:07 am
’s sovereign state members. [read post]
12 Oct 2016, 1:24 am
With the EU being so different, pan-EU injunctions are night impossibleThe CJEU swiftly addressed the point, stating that when an EU trademark court finds "...that the use of a sign creates, in one part of the European Union, a likelihood of confusion with an EU trade mark, whilst, in another part of the Union, that same use does not give rise to such a likelihood of confusion, that court cannot conclude that there is no infringement of the exclusive right conferred by… [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 2:00 pm
’ United States v. [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 9:52 am
June 24,2015) (quotation marks omitted). [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 9:43 am
Moab Indus. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 8:10 am
In that respect, the court noted (as also previously stated by the EUIPO) that, according to settled case-law, the application of Article 7(1)(c) of the EUTMR does not depend on the existence of a real, current or serious need to leave a sign free. [read post]
