Search for: "Marks v. State " Results 9721 - 9740 of 21,692
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Dec 2020, 5:58 pm by Aubrey Mandus
La Boom Disco, Inc., 955 F.3d 279, 283-84 (2d Cir. 2020); Marks v. [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 5:58 pm by Aubrey Mandus
La Boom Disco, Inc., 955 F.3d 279, 283-84 (2d Cir. 2020); Marks v. [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 1:32 pm
Original Article 09/17/2010 By Marian V. [read post]
4 Nov 2020, 12:48 pm by Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Number Word Mark 6171625 GANT COIN 6186820 GRASTON 6185288 ACTIVE CARE 6184959 A&A SURFACES 6184958 A&A SURFACES 6184505 SERENSNIPPITY ORGANIC INSPIRED HAIR SALON 6184477 LEGAL SOLUTIONS, PRACTICAL ADVICE 6184413 MARCH MADNESS 6184187 COMMAND GRILLE 6184171 JAVA WAVE 6184117 LUMALUXE 6183997 ZAAD 6186996 INDY HEMATOLOGY EDUCATION 6186778 RECYCLED WEALTH 6183837 COOL SCIENCE MATTERS 6183734 MARINE 31 6183733 MARINE 31 6186699 ESPERTA 6186975 REAL. [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 7:06 am by Maxwell Kennerly
The United States Supreme Court is already considering a related issue, the extent of immunity for prosecutors who fabricate evidence, in Pottawattamie County v. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 1:56 pm by Howard Knopf
This ruling, unless it is somehow overturned en banc or in the US Supreme Court (both of which possibilities I believe to be highly unlikely), may mark the beginning of the end of mass copyright litigation directed against BitTorrent users in the USA. [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 6:18 am
GMBH v Geox SPA (PatLit) (Gray on Claims) EWHC (Pat): PPDs and piecemeal litigation: MMI Research Ltd v Cellxion Ltd & Ors (PatLit) EWHC: When anticompetition spices up competition, greyhounds lose their appeal: Bookmakers’ Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd & Ors v Amalgamated Racing & Ors (IPKat) LOCOG demands Olympic Removals stop using Olympic symbol (IPKat) Infringing goods in transit: are patents more efficacious than trade… [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 5:00 am
”  Tsavaris, 2016 WL 80221, at *9 (citation and quotation marks omitted). [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 12:29 am by Steve Baird
The Ninth Circuit made clear that the cancellation claim could not go forward, at least in federal district court: “The plain language of Section 37 states that cancellation is available in ‘any action involving a registered mark. [read post]