Search for: "United States v. Mark" Results 1581 - 1600 of 10,389
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 May 2013, 9:05 pm by Luke Rioux
Wrong Burt LancasterThe United States Supreme Court recently decided Metrish v. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 3:01 am by Amy Howe
In the National Review, Mark Pulliam discusses Fisher v. [read post]
16 Apr 2014, 2:24 pm
Yesterday marked the latest, and perhaps nearly final, step related to the legal travails of Todd Hoffner, the once and future head football coach at Minnesota State University, Mankato. [read post]
19 Dec 2012, 3:30 am by John L. Welch
There was nothing to show that the film has been shown on television or distributed on DVD in the United States. [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]
17 Sep 2007, 9:08 am
United States ConstitutionMonday, September 17, 2007 marks the 220th anniversary of the adoption of the United States Constitution. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 1:25 pm by Nikki Siesel
To receive the broadest type of trademark protection, we recommend registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [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]
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]
19 Jun 2019, 2:39 am
In this cancellation proceeding involving a registration for the mark CAPTAIN CANNABIS for comic books, the Board faced the question of whether a witness located in the United States, whose testimony was submitted by affidavit or declaration under Rule 2.123(a)(1), may be cross-examined by written questions. [read post]