Search for: "State v. Busch"
Results 141 - 160
of 207
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Oct 2013, 1:22 pm
As the Court heard the case of Schuette v. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 2:07 am
According to the Supreme Court, this approach is confirmed by the CJEU decision in the Budweiser case (Budějovický Budvar v Anheuser-Busch, case C-482/09), where the Court laid down that "the prerequisite for the running of [the period of limitation in consequence of acquiescence is], first, registration of the later trade mark in the Member State concerned". [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 7:36 pm
So far, I am happy.The Court then reviewed the history of the substantial transformation test from its roots in the 1908 Supreme Court decision Anheuser Busch Brewing Ass’n v. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 9:00 am
The judge held that the defence of statutory acquiescence raised by the Defendants under section 48 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994), could not succeed because the five year period only starts to run when the earlier trade mark owner has knowledge of both the use of the later trade mark, and of its registration (applying Case C-482/09, Budejovický Budvar np v Anheuser-Busch Inc [2011] ECR I-08701). [read post]
3 Jun 2018, 4:07 pm
United States, where the court is being asked to rule on the permissibility of the police using phone records without a warrant. [read post]
5 Jan 2010, 10:56 am
UPDATE, Jan. 7: Today United States v. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 4:48 am
Phillips v. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 4:48 am
Phillips v. [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 9:00 am
In Anheuser-Busch (C-96/09P), the CJEU noted that in order to be capable to prevent registration of a new sign, the sign relied on in opposition “must actually be used in a sufficiently significant manner in the course of trade”, with “account [to] be taken of the duration and intensity of the use of that sign as a distinctive element vis-à-vis its addressees, namely purchasers and consumers as well as suppliers and competitors. [read post]
21 May 2012, 3:54 am
,Suchomajcz v Hummel Chem. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 9:01 am
March 27, 2024) (refusing remand to state court) Mora v. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 6:25 am
(IP Dragon) Colombia Legal victory for Coca Cola over trade mark (IP tango) Denmark Danish Supreme Court affirms decision forcing food stall operator using ORIENTEXPRESSEN to change her trade mark (Class 46) Europe Questions on acquiescence for ECJ in Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc (Class 46) (IPKat) EWHC questions referred to ECJ in L'Oréal SA v eBay now available on Curia (Class 46) Disruptive… [read post]
24 Dec 2008, 2:00 pm
(Class 46) Trading Standards officers uses new inspection powers granted under Copyright, Designs and Patent Act (Out-Law) United States US General IP legislation to watch in 2009 (Law360) IP cases to follow in 2009 (Law360) US Trade Representative issues statement on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ContentAgenda) Does the Federal Circuit need a fresh viewpoint? [read post]
11 Jul 2023, 6:45 pm
In Simeone v. [read post]
26 Nov 2010, 2:26 am
In the ensuing lawsuit, Dowd v. [read post]
23 Aug 2007, 8:06 am
Anheuser-Busch Cos., 2005 WL 280330, at *4 (Cal. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 12:00 am
” Payton served as lead counsel for the University of Michigan, arguing the landmark diversity case Gratz v. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 5:10 am
Murray (IP finance) United States US Patent Reform America Invents Act: First to Invent v. [read post]
12 Sep 2010, 10:45 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 12:10 pm
MillerCoors, LLC v. [read post]
