Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 841 - 860
of 19,464
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Sep 2015, 3:26 am
it may — depending on the specific mark which is described as enjoying a reputation and, accordingly, on the public concerned — be sufficient that a Community trade mark enjoys a reputation in one Member State, which does not need to be the State in which that provision is relied upon. [read post]
8 May 2025, 4:26 am
The court also upheld the Board’s finding that APR had effectively conceded a likelihood of confusion, but concluded that Heritage could not block registration without demonstrating protectable rights in its prior marks (Heritage Alliance v. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 2:43 pm
See also, On-Line Careline Inc. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 2:43 pm
See also, On-Line Careline Inc. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 6:21 am
The GC also stated that Tulliallan could rely on the protection of earlier mark’s reputation for all of the services covered by earlier marks in Class 35. [read post]
9 Jul 2020, 7:01 am
In United States Patent & Trademark Office v. [read post]
8 Jul 2024, 1:09 pm
It's got tons of details about the defendant's life, the crime, the procedural complexities of the trial, the attitude of the state court judge and their rulings, etc. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 12:19 pm
The case is called Nowrouzi et. al. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 12:21 pm
By way of background, Mark A. and Mark L. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 6:11 am
In Florida one can get a DUI on a bicycle, State v. [read post]
28 Jan 2025, 4:32 pm
When the Nixon administration attempted to impound funds across the federal budget, the Supreme Court heard two cases challenging the impoundment of EPA funds designated for state and municipal grants. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 5:59 am
This issue is expected to be resolved by the Federal Circuit following argument in FLMC v. [read post]
17 Apr 2014, 8:16 am
Elsewhere it won’t be changing either because the Member State isn’t interested or it can’t legally change. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 7:53 am
The plaintiff then appealed further to the Spanish Supreme Court, requested the modification of its traditional doctrine and supporting this request with legal and social arguments.Among the legal arguments, it was pointed out how this doctrine was against the principle of unitary protection sought by the Directive 2008/95 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, according to which the owner of the later trade mark had no ius utendiwhich could… [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 9:24 am
Exergen Corp. v. [read post]
10 Apr 2010, 9:11 am
Clontech Labs, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2016, 8:18 am
To discuss the case, we have Mark F. [read post]
27 Jun 2020, 10:15 am
Some however, were blocked or cancelled (including the Washington Redskins mark) on that basis before the Supreme Court held the bar unconstitutional in Matal v. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 8:04 am
Trial evidence supported the district court’s judgment, blocking registration of VAGISAN in the United States. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 5:31 pm
Lastly, the Court addressed its earlier ruling in Pequignot v. [read post]
