Search for: "Brand v. Brand" Results 101 - 120 of 10,572
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Mar 2024, 5:59 am by Satya Marar
Supreme Court confirmed the legality of Amex’s restraints on steering customers in the 2018 American Express v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 9:08 am by Marcel Pemsel
Moreover, national law can only provide relief in respect of acts performed on the national territory in question (CJEU, IHT Internationale Heiztechnik v Ideal-Standard, case C-9/93, at para. 22). 3. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 3:00 am by jonathanturley
” Something tells me that NPR editors would not have found Baker’s brand of advocacy to be “dignified. [read post]
3 Mar 2024, 10:42 pm by Eleonora Rosati
DiscoveryDev Gangjee, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, University of OxfordStephen Reid, Head of Intellectual Property at Imperial Brands PLC 15:40-16:00 – The future of trade marks – revisited (Darren Meale)16:00-16:30 – Coffee/tea break16:30-17:15 – Keynote address: Allan James, Senior Hearing Officer, UKIPO17:15-18:15 – Panel 2 – “A tale of a supreme saga: where does the Supreme Court judgment in Skykick leave us? [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 7:15 pm by Barbara Moreno
Samantha Barbas, Actual Malice:  Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 4:37 am by Peter Mahler
” Section 713 to the Rescue In 1961, made effective in 1963, the New York legislature enacted the brand new Business Corporation Law to replace the old Stock Corporation Law. [read post]
24 Feb 2024, 1:10 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
A variant of separating the mark from the brand; not seeing it in all categories, and we may have a world in which some marks—maybe the 1%--are not divided from brands but the others are. [read post]
24 Feb 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
For the Balkinization symposium on Robert Post,  The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930 (Cambridge University Press, 2024).Edward A. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 1:43 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Introduction: Rebecca Tushnet What might we derive from things the Court has said about trademark of late? [read post]