Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 1361 - 1380
of 19,481
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Dec 2006, 1:01 pm
(NFP) NFP criminal opinions today (7) (link to cases): Mark M. [read post]
20 Aug 2009, 11:33 am
My colleague Mark Murakami who blogs at hawaiioceanlaw.com will be covering today's oral argument in the Hawaii Supreme Court case Dupree v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 7:24 pm
Today’s opinion in McDonald v. [read post]
19 Mar 2017, 3:54 pm
The Utah Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in the case of Haik v. [read post]
13 Jan 2014, 3:27 am
Swatch AG v. [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 5:32 am
”Bayer Consumer Care AG v. [read post]
27 Nov 2008, 12:40 pm
As noted by the IPKat earlier, the ECJ today delivered its judgment in Intel v CPM. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 7:00 am
In the closing days of the recently concluded May term, the Illinois Supreme Court handed down its decision in Marks v. [read post]
31 May 2016, 5:57 am
The style of the case is, Mark Dizdar et al v. [read post]
14 Jan 2015, 7:30 pm
Supreme Court oral argument in Mellouli v. [read post]
12 Nov 2018, 2:54 am
Greenfield Senior Living, Inc. v. [read post]
26 May 2016, 4:12 am
Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 4:21 am
Ultrasun AG v. [read post]
8 May 2013, 7:00 am
The Cancellation Division rejected the application, stating that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the name was used in the course of trade at the date of application for registration of the conflicting mark. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 7:34 am
Dukes (June 20, 2011) was released this morning by the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
22 Oct 2024, 11:02 am
Mark White and served in that capacity until 1988. [read post]
11 May 2016, 4:03 am
Belmora's FLANAXBased on its reading of the Supreme Court’s Lexmark decision, the lower court had dismissed Bayer’s Section 43(a) false association and false advertising claims under FRCP 12(b)(6) and entered judgment on the pleadings as to Bayer’s Section 14(3) claim, ruling that the Lanham Act does not allow an owner of a foreign mark not registered in the United States, who does not use the mark in the United States [Bayer], to assert… [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 12:43 pm
– Judge Mark V. [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 1:52 pm
Earnhardt v. [read post]
23 Sep 2023, 3:43 am
It is also questionable whether the Court was correct in stating that consumer perception will only be relevant in certain circumstances, when the CJEU stated at least twice in Louboutin (at least in the English translation – see paras 43 and 48) that it was ‘necessary’, in order to determine whether a marketplace operator makes ‘use’ of a sign, to assess consumer perception. [read post]
