Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 1261 - 1280
of 21,678
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jun 2014, 3:30 am
The Board reversed a Section 2(e)(4) refusal to register the mark ROMANÓV for decorative eggs made of precious metals, jewelry, and picture frames, finding that the mark is not primarily merely a surname. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 7:34 am
Mil-Spec Monkey, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Oct 2015, 2:30 am
Luckily, the European Court of Justice answered this question over a month ago.The case of Iron & Smith v Unilever dealt with a national application for the mark "be Impulsive" in Hungary, lodged by Iron & Smith. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 3:16 am
MTD and Hormel v. [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 1:24 pm
United States (and its accompanying cases), and the 50th of Brandenburg v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 9:00 am
Legal Writing Pro Ross Guberman offers an analysis of Wal-Mart’s brief in the recent United States Supreme Court case Wal-Mart v. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 12:45 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 6:15 am
"A Path to America, Marked by More and More Bodies," New York Times, 4 May 2017 [text]A Revolving Door No More? [read post]
14 Dec 2021, 10:30 am
The case captioned Purdue University v. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 2:13 pm
Robert v. [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 9:38 am
”) State of Ohio v. [read post]
3 Oct 2012, 2:40 pm
Posted by Mark D. [read post]
30 Oct 2010, 8:12 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 2:58 am
324/09 L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie, L’Oréal (UK) Limited v eBay International AG, eBay Europe SARL and eBay (UK) Limited. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 10:58 am
Belmora LLC v. [read post]
29 Apr 2015, 12:38 pm
United States v. [read post]
8 Apr 2016, 9:15 am
Lord Justice Moore-Brick stated he found it unlikely that the grant would not have intended to extend to the low water mark on those occasions where the water falls below the mean law-water mark. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 4:02 am
Criticizing Comprehensive Drug Testing, posted here, is United States v. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 9:19 am
Tussey v ABB, Inc., an excessive fee and revenue sharing case decided on the last day of March after a full trial before the United States District Court for the District of Western Missouri, is a remarkable decision, imposing extensive liability for acts involving the costs of and revenue sharing for a major plan, on the basis of extensive and detailed fact finding. [read post]
