Search for: "Champagne v. Champagne"
Results 101 - 120
of 305
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Nov 2016, 10:58 am
Krishnan v. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 10:58 am
Krishnan v. [read post]
30 Sep 2016, 6:53 am
Subsequently, the local police arrested defendant and recovered champagne and Diet Mountain Dew from the backpack.People v. [read post]
12 Sep 2016, 7:52 am
Rothe Development, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2016, 6:28 am
____” or “U.S. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 7:23 am
Kiriakos v. [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 1:52 pm
In Ponzetto v. [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 3:17 pm
The case is Marin Asenov v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 12:15 am
UNION-IP's summer champagne reception on 29 June 2016 at the Royal Society. [read post]
17 May 2016, 10:11 am
Of course no IP gathering nowadays is complete without a discussion of the Unified Patent Court, and Pierre Véron (Véron & Associés) and Rowan Freeland (Simmons & Simmons) will be tackling this. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 9:42 am
The Tax Court in Whistleblower 22716-13W v. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 1:55 pm
Last week, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Burke in Petrovic v. [read post]
6 Jan 2016, 4:30 am
D’Agostino v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am
In Europe, The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the consent of a copyright holder does not cover the distribution of an object incorporating a work where that object has been altered after its initial marketing to such an extent that it constitutes a new reproduction of that work (Case C‑419/13, Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright) with Eleonora opining that the decision means that that there is no such thing as a general principle of… [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 2:34 pm
In K-Tech Telecommunications v. [read post]
22 Nov 2015, 6:27 pm
” The following year, in DeJong v. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 1:49 pm
In the closing days of its September term, the Illinois Supreme Court heard oral argument in Petrovic v. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 2:51 am
To rule otherwise would effectively give collective marks absolute protection, irrespective of the goods covered by the signs at issue [this is why it's better to have protected geographical indication protection in Europe, adds Merpel: try using "Champagne", irrespective of the goods or services you want to use it for, and see how far you get ...].* The goods and services here were dissimilar. [read post]
11 Oct 2015, 11:32 am
Earlier today this Kat posted a guest item by Katfriend Aaron Wood on the ruling of Mrs Justice Rose in Roederer v J Garcia Carrion S.A. [read post]
11 Oct 2015, 3:43 am
Roederer v J Garcia Carrion S.A. [read post]
