Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 9961 - 9980
of 19,272
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Nov 2010, 8:13 pm
” The Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 987 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). [read post]
12 Aug 2009, 8:43 pm
, was likely to cause confusion with his mark, MY CARD. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 5:55 pm
Oct. 18, 2010), Judge Arpert lists a number of cases cited by the Plaintiff, and left in the Bloomberg Law citations: United States v. [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 3:29 am
Superior Court, Tyrrell v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 1:34 pm
Chick-fil-a’s Eat Mor Chikn v. [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 5:30 pm
App. 1979) (citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 10:30 pm
It will thus retrace the different political, legislative, and judicial developments occurred, which have been marked as relevant for, or targeted to, LGBTIQA+ persons. [read post]
15 Apr 2009, 10:49 pm
See also Polaroid Corp. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 6:15 pm
In Guaranty Bank v. [read post]
26 Jul 2020, 6:24 am
Judge ruled for Mark, and Mark gave tenant 5 month extension to move. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 8:19 am
Dutch Jackson IATG, LLC v. [read post]
31 Dec 2010, 8:07 am
Harrison Research Laboratories, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 11:48 pm
JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al (Docket Report) District Court N D Illinois: Marking with expired patent sufficient for pleading intent: Simonian v. [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 9:49 pm
(Patently-O) US Trade Marks – Decisions 9th Circuit affirms Western District’s finding that VERICHECK is suggestive: Lahoti v. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 12:06 am
In response to same, the court stated as follows: The fallacy of defendants' contentions as to "superseding cause" is perhaps most clearly illuminated by its application to the cause of action relating to the death of five-year-old Mark. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 6:48 pm
It states:“The FTDA, as amended effective October 6, 2006, entitles the owner of a famous, distinctive mark to an injunction against the user of a mark that is ‘likely to cause dilution’ of the famous mark. 15 U.S.C. [read post]
22 Feb 2007, 8:15 pm
It can occur, for example, when a trademark owner files a declaration of use stating it has made actual use of its mark with all of the applied-for categories of goods. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 7:07 am
Chief Justice Roberts's plurality opinion in Baze v. [read post]
22 Apr 2018, 4:31 pm
Inforrm had daily case reports (thank you to Media Lawyer), as follows: Case Report, Sir Cliff Richard v BBC, Day 3, Raid information “came from police source” – Media Lawyer Case Report, Sir Cliff Richard v BBC, Day 4, Sir Cliff seemed “utterly distraught” Case Report, Sir Cliff Richard v BBC, Day 5, Sir Cliff “Faced Crisis Situation”, Reporter “Guessed the Singer’s Name” – Media Lawyer Case… [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 2:16 am
Kappos (IP Spotlight) (Patent Docs) Sham patent reexamination action not available in State Court says CAFC: Lockwood v. [read post]
