Search for: "Mark v. Wish"
Results 121 - 140
of 2,161
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2009, 6:07 am
Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. [read post]
17 Apr 2020, 3:10 am
My Organic Zone v. [read post]
4 Jul 2013, 10:06 am
In the case of The Procter and Gamble Company v. [read post]
2 Mar 2019, 4:14 am
In any event, he found that the behaviour of the respondent would substantially amount to copyright infringement.CommentThis interim decision raises a number of important questions, which would be interesting to see developed further in a full judgment on the merits.Trade mark law meets copyright ... or vice versaAs far as trade mark law is concerned, this cases raises the issue of bad faith registrations and, if one wishes, also broader reflections relating to overlapping… [read post]
1 May 2015, 5:00 am
In a recent memorandum, "non-precedential" decision in the case of Gordon v. [read post]
11 Apr 2022, 6:31 am
In the case of Getting v. [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 4:30 am
In the case of Mark v. [read post]
25 Dec 2012, 4:29 am
I wish I had used this scene from Hamlet Act V, scene I in my argument for why VSED does not constitute assisted suicide. [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 5:00 am
In the case of Boyle v. [read post]
23 Nov 2022, 5:22 am
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.I send thanks to Attorney Mark A. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 5:00 am
TortTalkers may recall a previous Tort Talk post on the case of Cost v. [read post]
7 Feb 2020, 5:08 pm
In the case of Wenk v. [read post]
27 Jul 2020, 3:33 pm
Kindly contact the firm, if you wish to register your mark with the Trademark Office. [read post]
17 Feb 2018, 2:54 am
Likewise in the High Court, the Claimant wished to rely on them in the High Court in relation to their case on distinctiveness (and not as evidence of confusion).It is clear from Interflora 1 (Interflora v Marks and Spencer [2012] EWCA Civ 1501) and Interflora 2 (Interflora v Marks and Spencer [2013] EWCA Civ 319) that surveys should only be permitted if they are of "real value". [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 3:35 am
Johnson & Johnson v. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 11:30 pm
Facebook TMs lots of LIKE marks Burning Man’s Burning Marks Trademark Attorney Ponders Parody — Yankees v Evil Enterprises Nike 3, Jesuits 0 Geekview IP Week in Review [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 1:33 am
A consumer wishing to acquire a TV installation accessory or external antenna bearing the Bitek brand would not in my opinion be likely to be confused or deceived as to the origin or provenance of those products because of Hills’ mark’s reputation in set-top boxes. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 12:32 pm
Last Thursday Advocate General (AG) Kokott handed down her Opinion in case C-104/18 P Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v Euipo (C-104/18 P). [read post]
1 Feb 2018, 6:45 am
In PMS v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 2:26 am
Moritz v. [read post]
