Search for: "United States v. Mark"
Results 1201 - 1220
of 9,474
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Nov 2009, 11:26 am
PACER is a service of the United States Judiciary. [read post]
2 Jan 2022, 8:17 am
TRADE MARKSLise Charles (WTR) provides an overview of the most-read posts on Word Trademark Review (WTR) on European trade mark case law over the past year, including analyses of cases dealing with issues such as unconventional signs (i.e., colour marks and 3D marks) (MHCS v EUIPO | Case T-274/20 and Guerlain v EUIPO | Case T-488/20), the risks of using a mark in a manner other than that registered (Fashioneast Sàrl v EUIPO | Case… [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 5:43 am
" United States of America, ex. rel., et. al. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2009, 1:02 am
However, the judge did not err in applying Article 7(1)(e); what he had actually done was to state that the policy underlying that article was relevant to the assessment of whether there was a sufficient similarity for the purposes of Article 9(1)(c), both the mark and the sign being shapes. * An assessment of similarity had to be carried out on a global basis by reference to the degree of similarity between the mark and the sign (here the Court cited Case C-252/07 Intel… [read post]
16 Sep 2008, 11:40 am
" United States v. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 7:37 am
United States v. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 7:40 pm
All individuals and entities in the UnitedStates who (1) own, have owned, or otherwise have the right to enforce licensingrights to goods and services bearing trademarks or service marks registered withthe United States Patent and Trademark Office, (2) engage or have engaged incommercial transactions in Second Life associated with such registered trademarkor service marks, and (3) whose trademarks and/or service marks were infringedin Second Life.c) The… [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 6:12 am
’This morning the Advocate General answered all this questions quite simply: ‘Where conduct occurs via the internet which is liable to infringe a national trade mark registered in a Member State, Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it attributes jurisdiction: – to the courts of the Member State in which the trade mark is registered [that's presumably good news for Wintersteiger, which has registered its… [read post]
13 Sep 2013, 8:00 am
Steak n Shake asserts that the Steak n Shake trademarks, and the products and services offered in association with those marks, have been extensively promoted throughout the United States for many years. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 6:14 am
Case date: 19 May 2022 Case number: No. 21-56133 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
5 Aug 2019, 2:11 am
See Wiley v. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 3:22 pm
Lee, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Petitioner v. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 3:22 pm
Lee, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Petitioner v. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 3:54 am
Audemars Piquet Holding S.A. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 3:47 am
Luxco, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 7:18 am
– United States District Court – Western District of North Carolina – December 11th, 2015 – This is a negligence and loss of consortium case involving falling ice. [read post]
15 Feb 2007, 2:56 pm
Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 6:54 am
United States and heard oral argument in Bullcoming v. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 6:19 am
In addition, [Van Praagh] claims [Gratton] has used the Van Praagh Trademark while offering her spiritual medium services at various venues throughout the United States and on her websites, Facebook Page, Twitter account and YouTube channel. . . . [read post]
14 Dec 2021, 2:22 pm
United States, 284 F.3d 1261, 1274 (Fed. [read post]
