Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 1121 - 1140
of 21,678
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Apr 2013, 2:40 am
Olin Corp. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 4:52 am
The Bombay High Court of India in a special hearing on Sunday dismissed a public interest litigation, which is a petition filed for public good, filed by four law students from Maharashtra and Gujarat states challenging the decision of the Maharashtra government to declare January 22 a public holiday to mark the consecration ceremony of the controversial Ram Mandir temple in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. [read post]
22 Mar 2015, 2:59 pm
One was a figurative mark (as represented on the right), the other being a word mark. [read post]
9 Sep 2011, 1:01 pm
Knights Armament Co. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2013, 11:00 pm
(see Buck v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:10 am
STATE V. [read post]
26 May 2010, 10:02 am
No skid marks were found on the roadway indicating Kuciemba did not brake before the rollover. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 5:15 am
United States v. [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 8:02 am
He stated that, although the EASY family of trade marks had acquired distinctiveness, the threshold for distinctiveness was set very high and the "EASY" trade mark had not acquired distinctiveness on its own. [read post]
25 Aug 2019, 2:28 pm
Tillett retained the right to use the KROMA mark in the United States. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 11:44 am
You may perhaps recall Marks from your old law school days. [read post]
7 Apr 2023, 5:32 am
Case date: 12 January 2023 Case number: No. 19-13390 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 4:59 pm
The Supreme Court granted cert. in the SAF case, McDonald v. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 1:00 am
Today marks the 90th anniversary of the landmark Olmstead v. [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]
19 Dec 2019, 12:11 am
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that all of Engage’s asserted marks were merely descriptive and lacked secondary meaning, including sole only mark the district court deemed valid mark but not infringed by Intellisphere (Engage Healthcare Communications, LLC v. [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 3:41 am
Registration of the earlier trade mark in the member state concerned did not constitute a prerequisite for the running of the period of limitation in consequence of acquiescence prescribed in article 9(1).” (Case C-482/09); [2011] WLR (D) 279 WLR Daily, 22nd September 2011 Source: www.iclr.co.uk [read post]
28 Nov 2019, 4:42 am
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
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
The AG stated that grounds for invalidity set out in the EU Trade Mark Regulation were clear and exhaustive. [read post]
