Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 81 - 100
of 19,767
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Feb 2011, 2:39 pm
Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 1:15 am
Paul’s Retail Pty Ltd v Lonsdale Australia Limited [2012] FCAFC 130 Société Anonyme des Manujactures de Glaces v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 8:23 am
STATE OF MONTANA, Defendant, Appellant, and Cross-Appellee. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 9:22 pm
(Afro Leo says check here for background.)The topic of his lecture was “Deprivation of Trade Marks through State Interference”. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 7:48 am
Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's qui tam false marking case for failure to state a claim was granted. [read post]
19 May 2011, 2:20 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jan 2021, 4:15 am
’s (Weigel) registration of the mark W WEIGEL’S KITCHEN NOW OPEN on the ground that there was not likelihood of confusion with QuikTrip’s registered design mark, QT KITCHENS (QuikTrip West, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 10:15 am
Spognardi Chicago Partner Mark Spognardi is the planning chair for tomorrow’s ALI-ABA teleseminar Wal-Mart Stores v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 10:24 pm
Brooks Brothers, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 12:41 pm
This morning the Court heard oral argument in McDonnell v. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 7:53 pm
Marks v. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 2:56 am
Mark Joseph Stern for Slate recaps the oral arguments in the Supreme Court yesterday in United States v. [read post]
19 Oct 2014, 6:33 am
United States v. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 10:59 am
On June 23, 2015, in State v. [read post]
5 Feb 2016, 1:00 pm
On February 4, 2015 the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in State of Ohio v. [read post]
16 Apr 2015, 3:18 pm
Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/95 (the Trade Mark Directive) states that: “The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade: (a) his own name or address provided he uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 6:49 am
The Court then summarized the case law regarding the required proof:In addition, according to case-law, although it must be proved that a mark has acquired distinctive character through use throughout the European Union, the same types of evidence do not have to be provided in respect of each Member State (...).Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly held that there was insufficient proof of distinctive character acquired through use of a mark throughout the European Union… [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 4:15 am
The judgment in Case C172/18 AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree v Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas addresses questions concerning jurisdiction, in particular in cases involving Internet sales. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 8:11 am
Williams, Questions Marks: Plurality Decisions and Precedential Constraint, which discusses lower courts' misuse of Marks v. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 8:39 am
" Heathcote Holdings Corp., Inc. v. [read post]
