Search for: "Marks v. State"
Results 941 - 960
of 21,678
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Nov 2010, 3:57 am
Simonian v. [read post]
13 Oct 2013, 1:47 am
S.1 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which implements art 2 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, defines a trade mark as "any sign capable of being represented graphically which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those [read post]
23 May 2011, 7:08 pm
There was extensive coverage of, and a variety of reactions to, the Court’s decision today in Brown v. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 5:59 am
This issue is expected to be resolved by the Federal Circuit following argument in FLMC v. [read post]
2 May 2022, 7:16 am
Bonta, mark only… Continue reading [read post]
27 May 2009, 5:41 am
Mark v. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 12:35 pm
Ekeland, Mark H. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 9:03 am
Bush v. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 5:31 pm
Lastly, the Court addressed its earlier ruling in Pequignot v. [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 4:38 am
Co. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 6:29 pm
In Pequignot v. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
However, comparing the marks in their entireties, "the addition of the term 'Ice Age' to applicant's mark serves to distinguish the marks because consumers are likely to regard “Lip Service” as used in applicant’s mark as indicating the function of applicant’s lip preparation, and to look to the other elements in the mark to indicate the source of applicant’s product.As the CCPA stated in… [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 5:49 am
Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. [read post]
29 May 2008, 4:21 pm
In Susan Buttitta, as Executrix of the Estate of Mark Buttitta v. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 6:51 am
The district court relied on Exergen Corp. v. [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 6:16 am
Courts use that standard to determine whether an affidavit justifies a search or seizure because there is probable cause to believe that the subject committed a crime.In Illinois v. [read post]
26 Sep 2022, 6:19 am
The court, reversing the injunction and ruling against the trademark holder, found that the RISE label was a weak trademark because it strongly suggested the qualities of the product it labeled and there was extensive third-party usage of the same or similar marks (RiseandShine Corp. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:18 am
STATE 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]
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]
