Search for: "Ring v. Ring" Results 961 - 980 of 2,651
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Mar 2015, 12:31 pm by INFORRM
 This argument was available because in relation to the tort of malicious falsehood, the single meaning rule does not apply: see Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd ([2011] QB 497). [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 3:16 am by John L. Welch
Briefs and other papers for these cases may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided.October 12, 2010 - 11 AM: Bose Corporation v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 5:38 am
TTAB Affirms Mere Descriptiveness Refusal of "TEA QUILA" for Alcoholic BeveragesTTAB Overrules Disclaimer Requirement for BENEDIKTINER for Beer and Food ServicesTest Your TTAB Judge-Ability: Is "O-RING CONDOM" Merely Descriptive of Condoms? [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]
17 May 2014, 1:14 pm by Sean Hanover
Give us a ring at 1-800-579-9864 and let's chat! [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 4:06 pm by Joe Mullin
     In our view, IBM’s new patent should fail under the Supreme Court’s Alice v. [read post]
30 Jun 2019, 3:00 pm
The apple for the day, just to be sure you keep the doctor away, is Apple Inc v. [read post]
13 May 2009, 4:47 am
  The chapter then examines whether having the trial judge make the determination would be inconsistent with Ring v. [read post]