Search for: "State v. Mark T."
Results 121 - 140
of 11,193
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Dec 2015, 10:57 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 7:47 am
Flex Ltd., August 14, 2023, Dyk, T.). [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 11:51 pm
The judgment merely states thatcat conceptually confused “it is sufficient to recall that, according to settled case-law, the repute of a trade mark is relevant, in assessing the likelihood of confusion, only as regards the repute of the earlier mark”, citing Gitana v OHIM — Teddy (GITANA), T‑569/11 (2013) (para 98). [read post]
1 Sep 2021, 10:02 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 9:01 pm
United States, and United States v. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 7:38 pm
This would appear to be a strange result (and goes against eg Case T-152/07 Lange Uren v OHIM). [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 8:10 am
In M.C. and J.C. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:11 pm
See, e.g., State Street, 149 F. 3d, at 1373; AT&T Corp., 172 F. 3d, at 1357. [read post]
4 May 2011, 11:13 am
v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 6:54 am
No, says the Dutch Court of Appeal in The Hague, although its reasoning is a little creative when it comes to its application of EU trade mark law.The decision is Zhu v Great Blue Sky Internationaland dates back to December 2013. [read post]
16 Nov 2016, 6:00 am
In Wickard v. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 2:38 pm
In Perquignot v. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 5:43 am
Referring to the CJEU's State of Bavaria v. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 7:35 am
Accounts of profits: CRISTAL clear when the other side doesn’t show upChampagne Louis Roederer v J Garcia Carrion [2017] EWHC 289(February 2017)Benny tasting some champagneMost trade mark cases are heard by way of split trial. [read post]
Illinois Courts Grapple With Pleading Standard for Intent to Deceive Element of False Marking Claims
3 Sep 2010, 6:37 am
Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's qui tam false marking action for failure to state a claim was granted. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 5:00 am
On September 21, 2010, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) insider-trading case against Mark Cuban (“Cuban”) and remanded the case for further proceedings. [read post]
5 Aug 2008, 4:13 pm
This can no longer be allowed in view of the comments in Bovemij Verzekeringen NV v Benelux Merkenbureau, Case C-108/05 [EUROPOLIS], which makes clear that the mark must be distinctive in the whole of the territory of the member state [Merpel would like a little clarification here: is this what Bovemij clearly established?]. [read post]
16 Oct 2019, 2:26 am
In the introduction to his opinion, he comments critically on the state of thelaw. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 6:52 am
Sukumar v. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 11:56 am
Slevin Co. v. [read post]
