Search for: "Mark C. Good"
Results 1621 - 1640
of 5,962
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Aug 2017, 6:58 pm
While the bill seeks to make some promising advancements to curtail overbearing state occupational regulation, it misses the mark in several ways. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 2:05 pm
Read the complete ECJ judgment of June 8, 2017 (Case C‑689/15) Read the full text of REGULATION (EU) 2015/2424 implementing the EU certification mark. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 2:05 pm
Read the complete ECJ judgment of June 8, 2017 (Case C‑689/15) Read the full text of REGULATION (EU) 2015/2424 implementing the EU certification mark. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 2:05 pm
Read the complete ECJ judgment of June 8, 2017 (Case C‑689/15) Read the full text of REGULATION (EU) 2015/2424 implementing the EU certification mark. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 2:05 pm
Read the complete ECJ judgment of June 8, 2017 (Case C‑689/15) Read the full text of REGULATION (EU) 2015/2424 implementing the EU certification mark. [read post]
26 Dec 2010, 9:39 pm
(Seattle Trademark Lawyer) US Trade Marks – Decisions Fraud? [read post]
13 May 2013, 3:01 am
Note: It is not known how many of JCP’s items have had their regular prices marked up. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 5:34 am
Marks, 2007 U.S. [read post]
29 Apr 2024, 10:43 pm
© Jocelyn BosseMarcel Pemsel evaluated the protection of short jingles as trade marks in light of the recent EUIPO Board of Appeal decision, which confirmed the rejection of Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe's application for a two-second long sound mark in class 39 (‘Transportation; passenger transport; packaging of goods; storage of goods; organization of trips’) due to lack of distinctiveness. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 7:48 am
Sonic also alleged that its registered marks are famous, and that registration of the SUPERSONIC mark should be refused under Trademark Act Section 43(c) because the use of that mark would be likely to dilute Sonic’s famous marks. [read post]
17 Jun 2020, 3:01 am
FRCP 26(c)(1)(B). [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 10:55 am
| The Opinion of the Advocate General in the case C-443/17 (Abraxis case). [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 10:22 am
Good news for those patent folk who have been diligently following (or attempting to follow) the thread of comments that followed the guest post by Walter Hart and Reiner Wijnstra (EP&C) on Poisonous Divisionals. [read post]
19 Oct 2010, 2:27 am
BABYESSENTIALS.COM c/o Nameview Inc. [read post]
27 Dec 2013, 5:41 am
That’s the good news. 6. [read post]
14 Jan 2015, 3:25 am
Precedential No. 28: Finding "MOMSBANGTEENS" Scandalous for Adult Website, TTAB Affirms Section 2(a) RefusalPrecedential No. 25: Finding ASSHOLE REPELLENT for Gag Gift to Be Vulgar, TTAB Affirms 2(a) RefusalSection 2(a) - Disparagement:Precedential No. 26: In Split Decision, TTAB Orders Cancellation Of Six REDSKINS Registrations Due To DisparagementSection 2(c) - Consent of Living Individual:Precedential No. 12: TTAB Reverses Section 2(c) Refusal of FRANKNDODD for… [read post]
23 Jun 2023, 5:39 am
The CJEU looked into the relationship between trade marks and mathematical shapes in the Gömböc case (C-237/19). [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 10:31 am
Way courts evaluate use and distinctiveness in priority is hermetically sealed from other contexts precisely b/c they know someone is going to get the mark; it’s just a question of who. [read post]
10 Aug 2008, 2:53 pm
As a reminder, the following italicized question comes from Jane C. [read post]
11 Nov 2018, 9:50 am
As Sheff recounts in his forthcoming book chapter, under the 1905 Act, federal registrants had the right to prevent others from “reproduc[ing], counterfeit[ing], copy[ing], or colorably imitat[ing]” their registered mark on goods with “substantially the same descriptive properties” as the goods for which the mark was registered. [read post]
