Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 121 - 140
of 19,455
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jun 2018, 2:24 pm
This morning the court issued a 5-4 opinion in Carpenter v. [read post]
26 Sep 2023, 9:24 am
Applying for the right kind of mark is crucial for successfully defending the trade mark, as the recent General Court judgment in DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem v EUIPO - Užstato sistemos administratorius (case T-774/21) shows. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 5:20 am
[www.oranous.com][www.oranous.com]UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION MARK DEAN SCHWAB, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 3:06 am
Wise F&I, LLC; Financial Gap, Administrator LLC; Vehicle Service Administrator LLC; and Administration America LLC v. [read post]
17 Jun 2024, 5:58 am
The State v. [read post]
17 Jun 2024, 5:58 am
The State v. [read post]
26 Oct 2023, 6:23 pm
Circuit Review – United States v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 2:29 pm
Arnstein & Lehr Partners Mark A. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 7:18 am
North States Indus., Inc. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 6:47 am
The Court of Appeal stated that since patent law already protected products and manufacturing process, such processes should not be protected by trade mark law. [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 1:20 pm
In doing so, the Federal Circuit established broad standing for private individuals seeking to pursue qui tam actions for false patent marking on behalf of the United States. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 4:00 am
Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Ron Matusalem & Matusa of Florida Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 11:14 am
Yet, it was not until the Federal Circuit's decision in Forest Group, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 12:31 pm
In Hollander v. [read post]
4 Jan 2019, 6:40 am
" So begins, Carr J's latest trade mark judgment in the English High Court - Pathway IP SARL v Easygroup Ltd [2018] EWHC 3608.This case was a High Court appeal from a successful application by EasyGroup to revoke two trade marks for non-use. [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 10:42 am
United States”: At the “Balkinization” blog, Richard Primus has a post that begins, “An earlier post on this blog by Mark Tushnet explained that Justice Gorsuch’s dissent in Gundy v. [read post]
2 Feb 2007, 7:39 am
STATE, 378 MD. 646 (2003); MORA v. [read post]
30 Dec 2009, 3:32 pm
MT, 10:30 PT, and 8:30 HST), my colleague and law partner Mark Murakami will be moderating a teleconference sponsored by the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law and the ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education: Beyond Gun Control: McDonald v. [read post]
27 Aug 2018, 10:54 am
See State v. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 11:44 pm
Retromark Volume V: the last six months in trade marks1. [read post]
