Search for: "Matter of Mark T."
Results 1161 - 1180
of 14,897
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Oct 2022, 4:49 am
This isn’t to say that no cause matters, or no problem is real or serious, but that the extremes of harm and destruction aren’t about fixing the problems, but about making sad people feel as if they matter by doing enough damage to get other people to look at them. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 4:18 am
Which Mark Sanchez will show up? [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 5:08 am
The decision is about likelihood of confusion, reputed trade marks' extended protection, and passing off.* The Naked Truth: use of BARELY THERE wasn't even barely thereAnother Irish Patents Office’s decision that Jeremy reports is HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises LLC v Dunnes Stores Ireland Company. [read post]
13 Jul 2015, 3:51 am
The marks were invalidated almost a year ago by the Appeal Board, after they saw that the marks were disparaging to Native Americans under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act.* Were the condoms "made in Germany" and why does it matter? [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 9:12 pm
But IAER has something Basel doesn’t have: a federal registration for CERTIFIED ELECTRONICS RECYCLER as a certification mark. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 2:58 am
The Court of Justice of the European Union is being kept very busy by intellectual property matters these days. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 3:22 pm
It is, however, for the national court to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, whether or not there was, in fact, a use, within the terms of Article 6(1), which could be regarded as having been made in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.3. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 9:34 am
Anyway, as I read more and more about Sarah Palin, I can't help but hearken back to Frank's arguments about what the heck was the matter with Kansas. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 3:41 pm
Contact Mark for more information or to schedule your free consultation: mark@bfw-lawyers.com or 251 433-7766. [read post]
24 Jun 2008, 10:00 am
I don't. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 1:58 am
By the time this Kat got down to reading the decision of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union in Case T‑320/10 Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst Zu Castell-Castell v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks And Designs) (OHIM), Castel Frères Sas, dating back to 13 September last, it was no longer topical and he decided not to write it up. [read post]
4 Jul 2015, 4:20 am
Finally, Judge Hacon turned to UKUO’s defense under Article 12(b), and although UKUO did claim the sign used was merely of descriptive character (which it was deemed to be), their adoption of the mark within honest practices in industrial or commercial matters was placed in doubt by the judge. [read post]
27 Feb 2019, 1:58 pm
Claims of public confusion and deception weren’t enough to transform an “essentially private” business dispute into a matter that could cause “substantial injury to consumers. [read post]
26 May 2008, 2:58 pm
Sadly, the place the NPS has marked as the location isn't the correct one. [read post]
8 Feb 2018, 3:36 am
By suggesting an ‘evolutionary’ interpretation of the ‘substantial value’ ground and rejecting the idea that a sign’s reputation (and distinctive character) matters, it would appear that – similarly to his previous Opinion – the AG tried implicitly to ‘save’ the Louboutin trade mark. [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 5:03 am
If you can't make tomorrow's event do not fear! [read post]
17 Jun 2019, 8:12 am
A patent is the exclusive right to use a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 4:22 pm
Words like these can’t function as a source indicator, no matter how much we may want them to. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 10:00 am
Miller attests that harassment of witnesses “won’t happen” and that “going down that road is just fraught with danger and it’s not ethical. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 7:27 pm
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney ("Boy George") Frank flew off the deep end this morning when CNCB's Mark Haines challenged the basis for Frank's argument that shareholders of banks and other businesses must have a right, mandated by federal law, to set executive compensation, a matter that is currently left to boards of directors. [read post]
