Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 141 - 160
of 19,770
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
22 Jul 2011, 12:31 pm
In Hollander v. [read post]
27 Aug 2018, 10:54 am
See State 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]
15 Apr 2019, 11:44 pm
Retromark Volume V: the last six months in trade marks1. [read post]
2 Feb 2007, 7:39 am
STATE, 378 MD. 646 (2003); MORA v. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 6:34 am
In Meenaxi Enter. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 6:34 am
In Meenaxi Enter. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2010, 10:51 am
See AFPU v. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 2:54 am
In our case, the plaintiffs’ mark, as stated in the registration, is “[t] he color(s) light blue is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 7:44 am
As far as acquired distinctiveness was concerned, although the EASY family of trade marks had acquired distinctiveness in Member States where English is spoken or commonly used, the threshold for distinctiveness was set very high and the "EASY" trade mark had not acquired distinctiveness on its own.2. [read post]
22 May 2019, 4:35 am
The hearing officer stated that it was abundantly clear from the evidence that The X Factor is one of the most popular television entertainment programmes aired on UK television. [read post]
24 Jan 2005, 2:01 pm
[JURIST] Thousands of abortion opponents marched on Washington Monday, commemorating the 32nd anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. [read post]
4 Jan 2013, 7:51 am
The Fortieth Anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's Landmark Decision, Roe V. [read post]
8 Jul 2009, 9:22 am
" In Strauss v. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 10:30 am
Yesterday, the United States of America filed a motion to intervene and for reconsideration in the Unique Product Solutions v. [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 12:16 am
Since MHCS’ trade mark has been filed prior to the accession of several Member States to the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013, MHCS will not have to establish acquired distinctiveness for these ‘new Member States’ (Art. 209(4)(a) EUTMR). [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 11:53 am
On June 10, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in the case of State of Ohio v. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 2:26 am
Indeed, in paragraph 55, the Court states that “the coexistence of earlier marks on the market might reduce the likelihood of confusion. [read post]
17 Jul 2016, 10:00 pm
Trademark law states that "[a] product's color standing alone may qualify for trademark protection.Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
