Search for: "Mark Long v . US"
Results 81 - 100
of 7,228
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jun 2013, 8:43 am
At the end of last month, the long-awaited judgment in the Interflora v Marks and Spencer case on trade mark infringement as it relates to keyword advertising was delivered by Mr Justice Arnold. [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 11:16 am
A Second Circuit case, Tiffany v. eBay and Google v. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 5:43 am
The 2nd Board of Appeal held that the CTM had to be cancelled for bad faith (Article 52(1)(b) CTMR) because the proprietor had knowledge of the older mark and had only filed its mark after trying to "reach a deal" with the proprietor of the older (partially non used) figurative marks and checking whether those marks were still in use. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 9:42 am
Teal Bay Alliances, LLC v. [read post]
11 May 2015, 8:28 am
Tacking, however, is only permitted as long as the modified trademark establishes "the same, continuing commercial impression so that consumers consider both as the same mark. [read post]
21 May 2010, 12:05 pm
The first request granted was in Bush v. [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 1:21 pm
To learn more about Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig and how we assist you, contact us by calling 800-747-9354 or emailing clientservices@dbllawyers.com. [1] The Boeing Co. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 2:38 am
Marks (St. [read post]
25 Feb 2020, 12:39 pm
’ or ‘If not, how many oppositions filed by a party within how long a period shall be deemed to be bad-faith? [read post]
15 Jan 2021, 10:23 am
As a threshold matter under the Rogers test, a plaintiff cannot state a viable trademark claim in the context of an artistic work (1) unless the defendant’s use of the mark ‘‘has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,’’ or (2) ‘‘if it has some artistic relevance, unless the [use of the mark] explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work. [read post]
27 Jun 2020, 10:15 am
Some however, were blocked or cancelled (including the Washington Redskins mark) on that basis before the Supreme Court held the bar unconstitutional in Matal v. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 3:06 pm
It had used these marks for petfoods since 1990, and due to the long use, the mark acquired a “slender degree” of distinctive character for small animal foods – though it was descriptive and declared invalid for other goods. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 1:09 pm
The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision overruling its long-standing physical presence rule in South Dakota v. [read post]
2 Feb 2016, 8:30 am
Real property — Community association — Parking lot The case before us marks the latest episode in a long-running controversy between Oregon, LLC (“Oregon”), Baltimore County, and the Falls Road Community Association, Inc. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 2:41 am
Dreamwell, Ltd. v. [read post]
25 Feb 2019, 3:15 pm
Mission Product Holdings v. [read post]
8 Feb 2009, 2:55 am
Masters v. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 7:48 am
Matthew Forys is the chief of staff at Landmark Legal Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in support of Mark Janus in Janus v. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 3:23 am
Lehman Brothers used the mark long prior to the assignment of the mark to Barclays in 2008, and so Barclays had priority. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 7:35 am
Readers may recall that not all websites “target” (for example) the UK and so not all websites using another’s trade mark can infringe a trade mark in the UK. [read post]
