Search for: "State v. Marks" Results 901 - 920 of 19,464
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Nov 2006, 2:41 pm
Kobylarz discusses Mark Lemley's change in position on obviousness in KSR v. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 10:53 am by Mark Cooke, ACLU of Washington
Again relying on the state constitution, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled (in York v. [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]
13 May 2010, 12:58 pm by South Florida Lawyers
A leading relevant case, Gerber v Keyes, was decided by a Florida appellate court and New York State ruled in a similar fashion in Wegman v Dairylea Cooperative, Inc. [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]
22 Jul 2010, 5:14 am
2010 marks the first year for the University of Massachusetts School of Law - Dartmouth, the state's first public law school. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 10:17 am by Steven Boutwell
  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]