Search for: "Matter of Mark T."
Results 1101 - 1120
of 16,487
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Feb 2015, 9:58 am
Second, reputational argument: consumers usually work these out as customer service matters and not contract matters, but again that is not a TM context. [read post]
4 Aug 2021, 11:49 am
Scalia’s dissent was focused on Aereo’s lack of curation, but they don’t think that matters. [read post]
9 Dec 2020, 10:41 am
” Nor would the court take judicial notice of printouts showing that DEM’s mark didn’t appear on/wasn’t referenced in ads for the jacket, since those might only be a snapshot of time. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 12:16 pm
A registration bar wouldn’t harm First Amendment interests much, because businesses would remain free to use the terms, even as marks, and could still register other marks. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
(the underlining marks the additions with respect to claim 1 as filed)In dealing with the main request on file, the Board raises a clarity issue:*** Translated from the German ***[2.1] Claim 1 of the main request differs from claim 1 as granted in that it contains a disclaimer of subject-matter disclosed in D4.[2.2] According to decision G 1/03 [headnote II.1] a disclaimer that has not been disclosed in the application as filed can be allowable if it serves to restore novelty by… [read post]
18 Jan 2022, 11:34 am
The post David Lat on the Crystal Clanton Matter appeared first on Reason.com. [read post]
19 Dec 2016, 9:08 am
Although Kibler argued that he’d used “LOGIC” alone as a trademark, he hadn’t registered it (which the court of appeals thought ended the matter).Actual confusion: This is the strongest proof of likely confusion, but its weight depends on the amount and type of confusion, in context. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 1:56 am
The Registrar of Trade Marks referred this opposition matter to the High Court in Pretoria, as the Registrar has been doing of late (reported here). [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 5:04 am
Mark's post about an OWS Constitution again inspires me to share some thoughts. [read post]
13 May 2012, 6:08 am
” – Mark Zuckerberg [read post]
13 May 2012, 7:04 pm
” – Mark Zuckerberg [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 12:37 pm
Look at dictionary definitions; relation of matter to other elements of the mark; nature of goods/services; manner in which mark is used in the marketplace. [read post]
13 May 2014, 2:10 pm
But I’m not sure that courts will ultimately see this my way; so far they haven’t been inclined to do so, precisely because the exclusion of a mark from federal registration leaves people entirely free to use the mark. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 3:18 am
Henry Bell did this by establishing that it had not used the sign SUPREME as a trade mark at all.* There was honest concurrent use by Henry Bell of the word "supreme" for over 20 years without causing confusion; this demonstrated that the use had no adverse effect on any function of the word mark -- and it didn't infringe the stylised and ribbon mark registrations. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 11:30 pm
The applicant claimed that the proprietor wished to prevent the entire drinks market from using skull shaped bottles which is a matter for design law, not trade mark law with its potentially perpetual term of protection, and precisely the ‘evil’ at which the prohibition on shape marks under Article 7(1)(e)(iii) is aimed. [read post]
12 May 2021, 2:58 am
Matter that is widely used to convey ordinary or familiar concepts or sentiments, or similar informational messages that are in common use, would not be perceived as indicating source and is not registrable as a mark. [read post]
20 Aug 2017, 5:20 am
Gay has the answer that Mark Lilla lacks. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 3:50 pm
But the matter is strategically interesting for any company operating in relation to telephone communication services/activities but also while considering suing a competitor on the basis of a mark which distinctiveness is likely to be discussed". [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
In contrast, where a combination of both agents was used, there was a marked reduction in infarction size, indicative of a significant neuroprotective effect. [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 6:16 am
After our interview of a Justice Department official on how to read Schrems II narrowly, it was only a matter of time. [read post]
