Search for: "Mark v. Wish"
Results 861 - 880
of 2,180
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2011, 1:44 pm
Sighted this morning, breaking the surface just off the Strand, the judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in MedImmune v Novartis [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat) certainly fits the legend.In characteristic style, the judgment is as comprehensive as one would wish. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 7:34 am
MARK S. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 7:56 am
See Republican Party of Minn. v. [read post]
21 May 2019, 12:34 pm
Moreover, there are ample arguments California agencies wishing to defend their chalking practices may make to convince state and federal courts in the Ninth Circuit not to follow the Sixth Circuit’s flawed decision. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:58 am
Canton v. [read post]
2 Nov 2006, 2:08 pm
The case that every law student who studies trademark law reads is Two Pesos, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 2:08 am
The IPKat wishes it every success. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
We wish. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 12:17 pm
What does this mean for foreign entrepreneurs who wished to benefit from the International Entrepreneur Rule? [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 2:54 pm
The IPKat is hugely impressed with the commendable brevity of the Court's ruling (here) and wishes that all the cases he had to read were so short: the entire text of the per curiam judgment is shorter than "Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)" ... [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 7:44 am
Mark Martins, the Chief Prosecutor, is unsure of what Bogucki seeks. [read post]
24 Jul 2011, 11:13 pm
Pink Sprinkles (Trademark Blog of the Trademark Lawyer’s Mind ) Starbucks – Starbucks sues for declaration of no trademark infringement over SDN mark: Starbucks Corp. v. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 7:57 am
” United States v. [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 7:39 am
" Koch v. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 12:12 pm
This may be the case for companies wishing to export from China products manufactured or assembled in China with components sourced from various countries. [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 6:20 pm
Not that this doctrine--that is meant to protect governmental speech from being held hostage to whatever may wish to be spewed from the mouths of non-governmental actors in the free exercise of their religious rights--is inherently ripe for abandonment. [read post]
8 Nov 2007, 8:31 am
Yesterday, the Constitution Project held a day-long symposium, "Strickland v. [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 7:33 am
Unites States v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 11:41 am
Inc. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 6:57 am
United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607–08 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also United States v. [read post]
