Search for: "Marks v. State"
Results 1281 - 1300
of 21,678
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Mar 2019, 12:01 am
The Supreme Court decision Scott v. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 2:26 am
Berger & Co. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 2:45 pm
In Abitron Austria GmbH, et al., v. [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 2:45 pm
In Abitron Austria GmbH, et al., v. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 10:46 am
”) (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 12:00 pm
The Board dismissed an opposition to registration of the mark SAVEMAX REALTY in the logo form shown below, finding it not likely to cause confusion with the famous mark RE/MAX, both for real estate brokerage services RE/MAX International Inc. v. [read post]
26 Nov 2009, 1:50 pm
State v. [read post]
9 Feb 2013, 7:02 pm
The Illinois Supreme Court will resolve the issue in Hartney Fuel Oil Co. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 7:21 am
Late last year, however, the Federal Circuit in Forest Group Inc. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2008, 4:59 am
Febal Cucine, S.p.A. v. [read post]
29 May 2012, 6:30 am
Today marks the 90th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's seminal opinion in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. [read post]
Blocking orders against ISPs to combat trade-mark infringement legal says Court of Appeal in Cartier
12 Jul 2016, 6:28 am
Article 11 of the EU Enforcement Directive also requires that Member States ensure that rightsholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe their trade-marks. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 11:46 pm
Related Posts: Burning Man’s Burning Marks Trademark Attorney Ponders Parody — Yankees v Evil Enterprises Frustrated Trademark Attorney Examines Frustrated Marks Geekview IP Week in Review Disney Withdraws its Trademark Registration Applications for SEAL TEAM 6 [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]
18 Aug 2016, 2:33 am
The Court, unanimously allowing the appeal, has marked a judicial shift from 32 years of previous law. [read post]
13 Jan 2017, 3:58 pm
Ziebarth v. [read post]
13 Jan 2017, 3:58 pm
Ziebarth v. [read post]
8 Mar 2007, 8:09 am
However, if the applicant responds to the PTO immediately after receiving the search report by informing the PTO that he wishes the mark to be registered irrespective of the content of the search report the mark will usually be accepted for registration within weeks instead of awaiting the deadline.If the applicant responds immediately to the search report a national Danish trade mark application is currently processed within 3-4 months".A pretty hopeless appeal… [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 2:43 am
| 3-D Lego trade mark | Garcia v Google | B+ subgroup | EU trade mark reform and counterfeits in transit | French v Battistelli | US v Canada over piracy | UK Supreme Court in Starbucks | BASCA v The Secretary of State for Business | Patent litigation, music, politics | Product placement in Japan. [read post]
