Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 901 - 920
of 19,471
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 May 2010, 2:35 am
Honore, B.V. v. [read post]
24 Nov 2006, 2:41 pm
Kobylarz discusses Mark Lemley's change in position on obviousness in KSR v. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 3:30 am
Oh sure, we all begin with the statement in Marks v. [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]
16 Apr 2018, 6:43 am
State v. [read post]
30 May 2012, 6:20 am
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 6:24 am
Additional Resources: Marks v. [read post]
7 Mar 2023, 3:03 pm
From U.S. v. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 2:26 am
Robert Doyle 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]
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]
2 Dec 2021, 10:35 am
“Roe v. [read post]
13 May 2010, 12:58 pm
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
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]
8 Feb 2013, 5:30 am
The CAFC cited Phonometrics, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 4:43 am
Frosty Treats Inc. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 3:56 am
Sony Group Corporation v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 1:17 pm
In the previously filed Promote Innovation v. [read post]
