Search for: "LaBelle v. LaBelle"
Results 9341 - 9360
of 12,213
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Apr 2015, 6:26 am
Marketquest Group, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Aug 2015, 3:22 am
Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 9:03 am
McGee v. [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 11:46 am
Cummings v. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 3:53 am
As to the word + design marks, the Board found, based on evidence of parodying and copying by third parties, that the composite logos have achieved public recognition as source indicators for applicant’s services.Stawski v. [read post]
17 Oct 2014, 6:00 am
Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 1:28 pm
But this ruling represents a disturbing milestone: For the first time since 1973’s landmark Roe v. [read post]
24 Oct 2016, 2:35 am
In my judgment the absence of the patented indication from the label cannot conceivably be sufficient to negative the intention. ...Viewed in this way I think the answer becomes clear. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 5:00 pm
The Washington Supreme Court's decision in Bylsma v. [read post]
26 Apr 2023, 10:48 am
I Dig Texas, LLC v. [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 1:46 pm
PeaceHealth v. [read post]
17 Jun 2018, 11:55 am
If you do med mal, a reminder stringtattoo isn't necessarily out of the questionQuinlan v. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 2:09 am
The case is Case C-97/12 P Louis Vuitton Malletier v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Friis Group International ApS intervening, a ruling of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 15 May. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 9:07 am
This week the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit upheld a District Court’s judgment in a New York case, Saladino v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 5:04 am
Supreme Court in Riley v. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 11:42 am
” The plaintiff in Hutson v. [read post]
1 Apr 2014, 12:34 pm
Pom argued that Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2023, 8:05 am
Vizcarra v. [read post]
31 Oct 2016, 6:32 am
Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Aug 2013, 1:28 pm
The court held that it is not and, in doing so, was in conflict with the landmark case of Tobe v. [read post]
