Search for: "Remington v. Remington"
Results 81 - 100
of 121
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2013, 5:43 am
General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 4:00 am
In order to be non-essential, it must be found not to be essential under both questions.[354] This interpretation is consistent with the approach taken by the Federal Court of Appeal in Halford v. [read post]
19 Dec 2012, 8:36 am
Supreme Court’s historic ruling in District of Columbia v. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 10:40 am
The case is State v. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 9:02 am
The all-time points leader in this hard-contested competition – which Merpel has just now invented – is Lord Hoffman for that unbeatable one-two combination in Improver v Remington which has had trainee patent attorneys reaching for their dictionaries for over two decades: “the patentee was intending the word or phrase to have not a literal but a figurative meaning (the figure being a form of synecdoche or metonymy)”.] [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 6:01 am
Read the decision at: Remington Development Corp. v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 6:01 am
Read the decision at: Remington Development Corp. v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 4:24 am
” Estate of Frankl v. [read post]
7 May 2012, 12:06 pm
Remington, dispute over Remington’s copying of triangular shaving head leading to multijurisdiction litigation. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 4:01 am
Lewy v. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 4:19 am
In United States v. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 8:18 pm
My talk focused on three main issues: pending legislative efforts to address foreign counterfeiters (including PIPA, SOPA, and OPEN), trademark bullying, and standards for online liability as reflected through Tiffany v. eBay and Rosetta Stone v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 11:26 am
In the present case, the boxes Decker saw proclaimed their contents -- Remington ammunition. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 9:02 am
[FN1] The Sixth Circuit's opinion in United States v. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 7:17 am
Read the decision at: Remington Development Corporation v. [read post]
25 Sep 2011, 7:12 pm
Nonetheless, Catnic (and its UK progeny Improver Corporation v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [1990] FSR 181) have previously received some degree of approval in the Australian courts. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 2:12 am
Philips v Remington and Dr Martens were distinguished as the products themselves were labelled in the appropriate places (and the rival traders’ marks were well-known). [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 6:19 am
As the Fifth Circuit described in the seminal case of Matthews v. [read post]
21 Jul 2011, 1:32 pm
United States v. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 9:57 am
- The famous REMINGTON mark is registered for guns, but also for similar clothing goods. [read post]
