Search for: "Marks v. Marks"
Results 141 - 160
of 34,288
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jan 2021, 3:19 pm
Zadro Products, Inc. v. [read post]
25 May 2010, 11:25 am
As restated by the Court, the defendant's argument was:its challenged articles are not "unpatented" [as required for a false marking claim] because they practice a once-existing, but now-expired, patent.The Court explained that the Federal Circuit's Forest Group, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jan 2022, 2:28 pm
Author Anthony Appleyard Licence CC BY-SA 3.0 Source Wikimedia CommonsA Jane LambertChancery Division (Mr Justice Zacaroli) Puma SE v Nike Innovate CV [2021] EWHC 1438In Trade Marks - Equisafety v Battle Hayward and Bower 7 Jan 2021 IP Northwest, I discussed Mr Nicholas Caddick QC's judgment in Equisafety Ltd v Battle, Hayward and Bower, Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 3296 (IPEC) (8 Dec 2021) where [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 7:48 am
" San Francisco Technology Inc. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2019, 1:14 pm
Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr David Stone) Re Wong Lo Kat Trade Mark, Multi-Access Ltd v Guanghzhou Wong Lo Kat Great Health Business Development Co Ltd. [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 11:00 am
In the case of Monster Energy Company v Glamco Co, Ltd [2018] SGHC 238, the High Court was faced with the primary question of whether Glamco’s trade mark “SWEET MONSTER” in Class 30 was registrable in Singapore even though Monster Energy had earlier trade mark registrations for the word “MONSTER” (and variations thereof) in several classes in Singapore (section 8(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act). [read post]
5 Jun 2018, 5:45 am
Hughes v. [read post]
6 Jun 2023, 9:15 am
Against this background, the General Court dealt with the question whether a trade mark enjoying a reputation for bread in Spain can successfully oppose a highly similar mark for bicycles and related goods in the recent judgment Bimbo v EUIPO - Bottari Europe (BimboBIKE) (case T-509/22). [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 6:26 am
In Forest Group, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 12:16 am
A cautionary example of such a situation is the recent General Court judgment in Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO - MHCS (Nuance de la couleur orange) (T-652/22) concerning the orange colour trade mark for the Veuve Clicquot champagne. [read post]
11 May 2020, 4:15 am
Supreme Court decisions in Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 3:23 am
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Sep 2021, 1:12 pm
by Dennis Crouch Lubby Holdings v. [read post]
23 Aug 2006, 2:33 pm
In Duramax Marine, LLC v. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 11:20 am
The district court dismissed the SEC's case against Mark Cuban today. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 3:00 am
MasterCard International Incorporated v. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 3:40 am
While most of you were probably reading the decision of the Fourth Circuit of Appeals in Rosetta Stone Ltd. v Google, Inc. that revived the plaintiff's claims against Google for trade mark infringement (see the report by AmeriKat here), this Kat was also having a go at the case footnotes. [read post]
10 Aug 2022, 2:26 pm
On balance of the above factors, the TTAB held that the marks were confusingly similar and denied registration of El Ranchero’s EL RANCHERO marks. [1] Cacique, LLC v. [read post]
10 Aug 2022, 2:26 pm
On balance of the above factors, the TTAB held that the marks were confusingly similar and denied registration of El Ranchero’s EL RANCHERO marks. [1] Cacique, LLC v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 9:33 pm
(7) Wyeth v. [read post]
