Search for: "Marks v. United States"
Results 1241 - 1260
of 9,178
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2017, 8:00 am
Emanuele Secci v. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 10:14 am
See Sparks v. [read post]
28 Jan 2009, 11:21 am
United States v. [read post]
31 May 2011, 9:10 am
The following is excerpted from the Syllabus and Opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States' in the above-captioned case decided today, May 31, 2011, obtained from Cornell University Law School's Legal Information Institute: After respondent SEB invented an innovative deep fryer, obtained a U. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 1:55 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 Mar 2009, 10:13 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 9:00 am
The 11th Amendment has been seen as quite strong — preventing the Federal Courts from hearing “any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. [read post]
7 Aug 2024, 4:17 am
The Board noted that Allright did not allege prior use of its mark in the United States, nor ownership of a U.S. registration. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 3:03 pm
To resolve this issue, one party must demonstrate they used the mark in commerce before the other party, thereby entitling that party to register the trademark at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). [read post]
10 Oct 2022, 6:23 am
Haaland v. [read post]
5 Dec 2018, 7:22 pm
United States. [read post]
9 Jan 2010, 10:02 pm
United States v. [read post]
8 Jul 2008, 10:01 pm
Quoting CAAF's opinion in United States v. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 2:56 pm
Under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act it is required that the party opposing registration demonstrate rights to a registered mark or rights to “a mark (or trade name) previously used in the United States and not abandoned. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 2:56 pm
Under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act it is required that the party opposing registration demonstrate rights to a registered mark or rights to “a mark (or trade name) previously used in the United States and not abandoned. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 2:36 am
Boi Na Braza, LLC v. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 5:00 am
In a case arising out of a police response to a domestic disturbance.As an update on that matter, under a decision marked as “Not Precedential” and dated June 3, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third District affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for the Defendants. [read post]
24 Oct 2024, 1:00 pm
On October 3, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s Opinion and Order in Mark C. [read post]
