Search for: "United States v. Mark"
Results 1721 - 1740
of 9,477
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Sep 2007, 9:03 am
" United States v. [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 3:57 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Apr 2013, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 9:20 pm
United States v. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 1:31 pm
See, North Dakota v. [read post]
27 Feb 2020, 2:49 am
("HCI") sought a concurrent use registration for the mark HANSCOMB CONSULTING & Design (shown below) for various business services, covering the entire United States except for two geographical areas (Hinsdale, Illinois and Los Angeles, California). [read post]
7 Mar 2007, 5:15 am
This week marks the 150th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 9:05 pm
United States ex rel. [read post]
23 Dec 2024, 7:24 am
” Although the likelihood of confusion was ordinarily a fact-intensive issue, this was one of the rare instances in which the mark owner’s case was so weak that summary judgment was appropriate, in the Ninth Circuit’s view (Lerner & Rowe PC v. [read post]
24 Nov 2020, 11:32 am
” The question before the Court is “[w]hether a final judgment in favor of the United States in an action brought under Section 1346(b)(1) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, on the ground that a private person would not be liable to the claimant under state tort law for the injuries alleged, bars a claim under Bivens v. [read post]
7 Apr 2007, 6:47 am
United States v. [read post]
6 Aug 2024, 8:00 am
Case date: 21 June 2024 Case number: No. 23-50413 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law More from our authors: Trade Mark Law in Europe: Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Fourth Edition by Ulrich Hildebrandt€ 176 Concise European Design Law … [read post]
19 Jan 2006, 4:41 pm
Groumoutis believed that "use" meant "made," he could not have believed that the marks were used in the United States because Opposer's clothing items were not made in the United States. [read post]
11 Oct 2015, 2:37 pm
In Case C-228/03 Gillette Co v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy, the CJEU stated that use that does not create an impression of commercial connection or take unfair advantage of the earlier mark’s distinctive character or repute will be considered honest practice. [read post]
12 May 2022, 9:26 pm
Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia resolved the DOJ's motion in two steps. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 3:07 am
In today’s connected world, infringers can take advantage of U.S. commerce from outside the United States. [read post]
29 May 2013, 8:40 am
Global Traffic Technologies, LLC v. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 10:59 am
Ed. 2d 497 (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
28 May 2018, 3:01 pm
” To establish priority of use, a party must show that its owns a mark or trade name previously used in the United States and not abandoned. [read post]
1 May 2013, 5:06 am
Ireland and the United Kingdom both submitted third-party comments in TV Vest v. [read post]
