Search for: "United States v. Marks" Results 1201 - 1220 of 9,484
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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]
2 Jan 2022, 8:17 am by Giorgio Luceri
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]
6 Feb 2019, 7:30 pm by Patrick McDonnell
Rather it was whether the Due Process Clause supported a claimed remedy of release into the United States. [read post]
15 Aug 2012, 1:24 pm by WIMS
" Petitioners -- the State of Texas; the Chamber of Commerce of the United States; and representatives of nationwide manufacturing, chemical and petroleum industries -- petition for review of the EPA's action under the Administrative Procedure Act. [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]
16 Sep 2009, 7:40 pm by Ross Dannenberg (Gamertag: Aviator)
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]
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]
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]
15 Feb 2007, 2:56 pm
Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 3:16 am
  The sole issue, according to the Board, was "whether Respondent abandoned its registered mark ONE PACKET by failing to use, or cease using of, the mark in the United States in connection with the services listed in its registration without an intent to resume use. [read post]
14 Dec 2021, 2:22 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
United States, 284 F.3d 1261, 1274 (Fed. [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 7:18 am by Steven Cohen
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]