Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 901 - 920
of 19,778
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Aug 2009, 11:03 am
Denning and Glenn Harlan Reynolds (Cumberland School of Law and University of Tennessee College of Law) have posted Heller High Water(Mark?) [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 10:53 am
Again relying on the state constitution, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled (in York v. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 3:30 am
Oh sure, we all begin with the statement in Marks v. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 2:26 am
Robert Doyle v. [read post]
6 Sep 2017, 11:27 am
”) State of Ohio v. [read post]
26 May 2010, 2:35 am
Honore, B.V. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 5:13 pm
” Although the Orange Book has be raised in some false marking cases (see, e.g., Hollander v. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 2:55 pm
Mark A. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 10:33 am
In the case at issue Yoshido’s earlier patents and the products marketed by the applicant [as happened with the earlier patents in Lego] could well-be considered ‘relevant material’ in view of the examination of the possible technical function of the trade mark.In this regard, the Court stated, it is also fine to consider relevant material to the trade mark’s application date. [read post]
16 Apr 2018, 6:43 am
State v. [read post]
7 Mar 2023, 3:03 pm
From U.S. v. [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 3:04 am
Section 2(a)’s immoral-or-scandalous-marks provision fails to satisfy even the “intermediate scrutiny” applied to commercial speech under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2013, 5:30 am
The CAFC cited Phonometrics, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 2:43 am
There, the CAFC rejected the "reasonable manner" approach:Neither Phillips nor any other opinion of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, our predecessor court, or this court has endorsed the T.T.A.B. [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 3:30 am
Anaheim Manufacturing Company v. [read post]
1 Jul 2024, 9:02 pm
Bruen and RahimiTwo years ago, in New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. [read post]
10 Mar 2021, 8:32 am
See Hiraga v. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 2:56 am
The CAFC then dismissed the appeal as moot and remanded the case to "allow the Board to consider a motion to vacate its decision in the first instance, in accordance with United States Bancorp Mortgage Company v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 10:17 am
And they concluded that modern dormant Commerce Clause precedents rest on two primary principles that mark the boundaries of a state authority to regulate interstate commerce.[9] “First, state regulations may not discriminate against interstate commerce; and second, States may not impose undue burdens on interstate commerce. [read post]
25 Oct 2013, 5:45 am
Today marks the fourth and final day in this week’s pretrial hearing in United States v. [read post]
