Search for: "Marks v. State"
Results 1721 - 1740
of 19,797
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Dec 2013, 5:01 am
The decisionThe IPO’s decision focused on the words of section 3(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which states that “trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character” -- an absolute bar to registration that comes from Article 3(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive and is paralleled in Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-37/03 BioID v OHIM… [read post]
6 Jul 2018, 3:22 am
The federal anti-dilution law mandates that a mark must be so widely known to everyone across the United States as to be in the category of “famous” marks. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 7:08 pm
Regents of New Mexico State University (10th Cir., August 6, 2015) (affirming various judgments against plaintiffs for lack of proper briefing)*Martin v. [read post]
18 Sep 2008, 5:35 pm
In Grapha-Holding AG v. [read post]
23 May 2007, 7:13 am
The following commentary is by Mark Botti, a partner in Akin Gump's DC office. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 11:41 am
Facts: This case (Superior Consulting Services, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 11:41 am
Facts: This case (Superior Consulting Services, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Oct 2008, 11:05 am
Correction officer trainee dismissed after failing to keep his beard trimmedVales v State of New Jersey, CA3, No. 07-2971, opinion filed August 12, 2008 [marked "Not Precedential" and not published]Juan Valdes, a former corrections officer trainee, was discharged from the New Jersey Department of Corrections Officer Training Program for failing to keep his beard within a one-eighth inch allowance granted to him by the Academy as an accommodation of his religious… [read post]
11 Jun 2022, 12:47 pm
Licensing Inc. v. [read post]
14 Nov 2014, 9:15 am
In response, Specsavers relied not on the use of the wordless mark itself, but on the use of the following logo (which became known as the ‘shaded logo’): Article 15 of the CTM Regulation states that the use of a registered trade mark may be made “in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered”. [read post]
6 May 2019, 3:52 am
Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC v. [read post]
28 May 2020, 12:05 am
Interestingly, although the parties had not argued this, the court suggested it had jurisdiction to hear the case against Nestlé BV's parent company on the basis of the CJEU's decision in C-617/15 Nike v. [read post]
2 Apr 2013, 7:15 am
Carson Optical, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2008, 12:19 pm
ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT Mark S. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 8:30 am
The post Update: Stone Brewing v. [read post]
11 Nov 2024, 1:59 am
However, the use of the mark on the dissenters’ website did not cause confusion because their website clearly noted that it was distinct from the LNC (Libertarian National Committee, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 9:33 am
Levanoff, et al. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 5:13 am
Belinda Montoya plead guilty to possession of cocaine and was sentenced to fourteen months in a state jail facility. [read post]
18 May 2009, 9:19 am
Supreme Court's decision today in Ashcroft v. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 7:20 am
Bryant, Jr. v. [read post]
