Search for: "Matter of Mark T."
Results 1281 - 1300
of 14,911
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Feb 2018, 12:45 am
IPKat clarifies matters: The new AG Opinion in Louboutin: is it really bad news for the famous red sole? [read post]
26 Feb 2017, 3:31 am
Katfriend Gill Grassie (Brodies LLP) discusses the matter of Tartan Army Ltd v Sett GmbH and Others [2017] CSOH 22. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 4:08 pm
It’s not simply a matter of anonymous people being up to no good: platform design and moderation has a lot to do with what kinds of behaviours are allowed, and thrive, on social media. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 1:43 pm
Rogers simply requires that the junior user didn’t arbitrarily choose to use the mark just to exploit its publicity value. [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 2:10 pm
(See Jessica Silbey’s work.)Strandburg: might be that counterfeiting doesn’t matter as long as it’s illegal. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 11:11 pm
Mark writes: Prosecutors seem so proud of themselves when they argue, "Don't show me photos of the defendant's kids. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 1:37 pm
This has commonly—and understandably—led to disgruntled contractors who didn’t realize what they were truly giving up when they opted to use their own software in performance of contracts without including regulation-compliant markings and protections. [read post]
27 Apr 2007, 4:31 am
There is a marked difference between possession and use. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 12:10 pm
No matter of Villager Wonk BS is going to change that. [read post]
28 Sep 2022, 1:50 am
However, as the CJEU explained for trade mark matters, it is insufficient for the sign concerned to be regarded as being “in bad taste”.The same approach was adopted by the German Federal Patent Court in 10 W (pat) 713/02. [read post]
24 Nov 2014, 7:04 am
* Seeing stars and non-dominant rabbits: a couple of trade mark decisions and a rantJeremy provides a round-up on two recent trade mark decisions coming from the General Court, these being Case T-342/12, Max Fuchs v OHIM, Les Complices and Joined Cases T-122/13, T-123/13 and T-77/13 Laboratoires Polive v OHIM, Arbora & Ausonia SL. [read post]
3 Nov 2022, 6:31 am
Posted by Mark T. [read post]
2 May 2014, 10:34 am
And while you're in Hong Kong, don't forget to come and say hello. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 3:32 am
" Applicant argued that the word "buy" does not identify a genus of services associated with "selling," but the Board didn't buy it. [read post]
4 Feb 2013, 2:02 pm
I would be much grateful if you could advise me on this matter. [read post]
21 Nov 2024, 3:32 am
Likewise, Applicant’s response to any nonfinal Office action issued on remand must be limited to the matters raised in that Office action. [read post]
27 Jul 2010, 4:05 am
Yes, he could have handled it a little better, but overall, I think he got his point across, but, those who don't want to listen, will not listen, no matter who says what he said. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 12:13 pm
As you may or may not recall, §32 of the Lanham Act provides for a cause of action for infringement of registered marks; courts have read 43(a) to provide a similar cause of action for “unregistered marks”—matter that is not registered with the PTO but serves a trademark function of indicating source. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 1:31 pm
Striking resemblance b/t using a © work as a work (his concept of infringement) and the concept of use of a mark as a mark. [read post]
2 May 2019, 10:46 am
It does not matter that he provided such outstanding leadership that he was awarded perfect marks in his 2014, 2015, and 2016 annual reviews. [read post]
