Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 1621 - 1640
of 21,678
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Sep 2015, 9:38 pm
Mark Baker, Is the balance getting better? [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 4:39 am
State v. [read post]
28 Aug 2023, 5:57 am
” Watson v. [read post]
22 Mar 2024, 9:38 am
The U.S. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 10:06 am
More on Atkins v. [read post]
30 Oct 2008, 5:14 pm
GRANT V. [read post]
6 Apr 2017, 11:11 pm
Zuma has connotations other than as a Japanese restaurant and is current head of state. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 12:23 pm
The Court stated the question thus: Does the Lanham Act allow the owner of a foreign mark that is not registered in the United States and further has never used the mark in United States commerce assert priority rights over the mark that is registered in the United States by another party and used in United States commerce? [read post]
16 Feb 2022, 4:03 am
Jacobs v. [read post]
18 May 2018, 4:03 am
" New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. [read post]
27 Dec 2019, 4:16 am
American Polo Association, LLC v. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 7:07 am
Id.CareFreeEnzymes Inc. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 6:18 am
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has affirmed, on summary judgment, the TTAB's precedential decision in RxD Media, LLC v. [read post]
28 Jan 2016, 3:07 am
Spirits, 563 F.3d at 1353, 90 USPQ2d at 1493; see Corporacion Habanos, S.A. v. [read post]
22 Jun 2014, 5:34 am
Under common law a mark is protectable through its use, or as was stated by Justice Pitney in United Drug Co v Theodore Rectans Co: "...the right to a particular mark grows out of its use, not its mere adoption; its function is simply to designate the goods as the product of a particular trader and to protect his good will against the sale of another's product as his". [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 8:35 pm
S. 678, 684 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 3:50 am
[www.angel-diaz.us]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. [read post]
2 Mar 2023, 9:39 pm
The question marks above are not rhetorical. [read post]
29 Nov 2021, 11:13 am
Brittex Financial v. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 6:30 pm
When the lawyers left that firm without notifying the Alabama court, the notice of the court's decision against their client ended up in the New York firm's mail room, where it was marked "Return to Sender. [read post]
