Search for: "Caps v. Board Members"
Results 101 - 120
of 349
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2021, 2:01 pm
Other Board members are Republicans John F. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 3:00 am
UPDATE Ministerial v. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 3:00 am
UPDATE Ministerial v. [read post]
31 Dec 2020, 11:53 am
V. [read post]
31 Dec 2020, 11:43 am
V. [read post]
31 Dec 2020, 11:43 am
V. [read post]
22 Dec 2020, 2:33 pm
Tallent v. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 12:24 pm
From Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. [read post]
29 Nov 2020, 5:14 am
Katherine Tai"; and "Multiple members of Congress, including members of both parties in the Senate, have suggested Tai as the potential leader of USTR in conversations with the President-elect Joe Biden's transition team"). [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 3:00 am
Mountain Lion Foundation v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 12:44 pm
If you have not yet read United States v. [read post]
13 Aug 2020, 6:59 am
Department of Justice and a contingent of state attorneys general challenged AmEx’s anti-steering rules in a case that reached the Supreme Court in 2018 as Ohio v. [read post]
5 Jul 2020, 5:43 am
The IP Federation and its members have been tirelessly navigating the COVID-19 crisis - its impact on the lives and well-being of its members and society and its toll on the economy. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
County of Butte v. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
Campaign Funds for Judges Warp Criminal Justice, Study Finds New York Times – Adam Liptak | Published: 6/1/2020 In Gideon v. [read post]
29 May 2020, 3:00 am
United States v. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 11:33 am
In Republic of Argentina v. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 1:46 am
In an interesting decision delivered earlier this month concerning an opposition filed by DC Comics, which owns the figurative mark “SUPERMAN” (pictured below), the EUIPO Opposition Division acknowledged that this mark enjoys a high degree of recognition and, as such, is eligible for protection under Article 8(5) EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR), even despite that the well-known character of the trade mark had been only sufficiently demonstrated for one class of goods (Class 16)… [read post]
16 Apr 2020, 12:08 pm
The EUIPO Board of Appeal refused it, but on the basis that the mark was “contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality”. [read post]
