Search for: "State v. Marks" Results 1061 - 1080 of 19,464
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Nov 2019, 4:42 am by Farah Mukaddam (UK)
  The AG stated that grounds for invalidity set out in the EU Trade Mark Regulation were clear and exhaustive. [read post]
28 Nov 2019, 4:42 am by Farah Mukaddam (UK)
  The AG stated that grounds for invalidity set out in the EU Trade Mark Regulation were clear and exhaustive. [read post]
16 Sep 2018, 1:41 am
Therefore if a mark lacks distinctive character in all Member States, the mark can only be registered if it has acquired distinctive character in the whole of the European Union (Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM, C‑98/11 P, EU:C:2012:307, [61] and [63]).It does not necessarily follow that distinctive character needs to be proven in each Member State. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 3:18 pm by Marty Lederman
The constitutional analysis in the Supreme Court's decision yesterday in Matal v. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 12:02 pm
A little more than a year ago, back in February 2008, a majority of the Supreme Court stated, in Riegel v. [read post]
9 Nov 2006, 9:11 pm
The various federal courts across the United States apply a number of different factors to determine whether the use of a mark is likely to cause confusion with a previously-existing mark. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 4:34 am by Christopher Brown, Matrix
On 25 February 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its judgments in R (oao Rotherham Metropolitan BC and Ors) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 6. [read post]
3 Oct 2019, 12:15 pm by Eric Goldman
Arguably, we might view the period right before RTBF’s launch as the high-water mark of Internet freedom. [read post]