Search for: "United States v. Mark"
Results 1421 - 1440
of 9,474
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2008, 2:07 am
But there is a persuasive Ninth Circuit case, Gardner v. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 3:02 am
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a Final Judgment ordering the TTAB to "transfer" to Piano Wellness LLC the application of Charlotte K. [read post]
18 Jun 2011, 6:00 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 6:21 pm
United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 5:00 am
Mark A. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 11:30 am
In McCallum Industries Ltd. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 11:36 pm
” (alterations in original) (citation and quotation marks omitted)); MEMC, 420 F.3d at 1375–76 (“[T]he reach of section 271(a) is limited to infringing activities that occur within the United States. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 4:28 am
McDonald’s Corp. v. [read post]
30 May 2013, 9:05 pm
Wrong Burt LancasterThe United States Supreme Court recently decided Metrish v. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 3:01 am
In the National Review, Mark Pulliam discusses Fisher v. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 9:08 am
District Court Judge Mark A. [read post]
19 Dec 2012, 3:30 am
There was nothing to show that the film has been shown on television or distributed on DVD in the United States. [read post]
22 Dec 2020, 9:54 pm
Judges: BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 3:31 am
The Board found that the mark, which indicates membership in a motorcycle club, falsely suggests a connection with the United States Marine Corps in violation of Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 4:30 am
Shelnutt's trial began, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in United States v. [read post]
30 Sep 2021, 6:38 am
In United States v. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 6:36 am
Caceres-Olla, Ninth Circuit: After pleading guilty to unlawful reentry into the United States, Appellant was sentenced to 46 months in prison. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 4:12 am
United States v. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 9:04 am
Merpel would not be at all surprised if this decision, which looks perfectly good to her, goes to the Court of Appeal and comes out looking somewhat different.In this dispute Flynn traded in generic medicines and speciality brands, all of which carried its FLYNN name and logo, the former being registered both as a Community trade mark and as a United Kingdom trade mark for pharmaceutical substances. [read post]
