Search for: "Marks v. State"
Results 1581 - 1600
of 19,795
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jun 2022, 9:01 pm
In 1965, in Griswold v. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 8:02 am
In Tam, the majority stated that “trademarks often have an expressive content” and Kennedy stated that “marks make up part of the expression of everyday life. [read post]
26 Sep 2022, 6:10 am
In class 43, the following three trade marks were the first ones filed by Hunan Chayue: The verbal elements of the three respective trade marks (‘TM Bs’) all have only one character that differs from the TM A:TM A: ‘茶 (tea) 颜 (face) 观 (observe) 色 (colour)’ v. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 10:05 am
Here's the abstract: This Article was written for a symposium held at the University of Georgia School of Law marking the fiftieth anniversary of New York Times v. [read post]
24 Jul 2020, 7:18 am
This ruling supplements the Ohio State v. [read post]
21 May 2007, 8:13 am
Mark Dayton v. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 1:00 pm
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 2:56 pm
” Nkanginieme v. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 2:56 pm
” Nkanginieme v. [read post]
25 May 2023, 1:33 pm
Ante, at 20, 22 (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
26 Jan 2017, 3:22 am
Luxco, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Sep 2024, 3:54 am
Some enlightenment is needed, since they mean “Studio Ghibli” in Japanese.As regard the figurative element of the contested EUTM, the Division Opposition rejected the argument stating that it is “a well-known, unusual and highly distinctive cartoon character named ‘Totoro’”. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 10:14 am
See Sparks v. [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 11:30 am
This was filed in May: Starbuds Cannabis Club Collective; Mark Gustely v. [read post]
19 Nov 2019, 3:43 pm
See Tull v. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 7:24 am
(2) If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must it then be accepted that in circumstances such as those in the case at issue, the mere presence in a Member State of such goods (which have been placed under a duty suspension arrangement in that Member State) does not prejudice, or cannot prejudice, the functions of the trade mark, with the result that the trade mark proprietor which invokes national trade mark rights in that Member… [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 8:56 am
Purdum v. [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 8:10 am
In that respect, the court noted (as also previously stated by the EUIPO) that, according to settled case-law, the application of Article 7(1)(c) of the EUTMR does not depend on the existence of a real, current or serious need to leave a sign free. [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 6:29 pm
According to a December, 2012 decision of the Federal Court, HomeAway.com, Inc v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 3:47 am
Luxco, Inc. v. [read post]
