Search for: "State v. Mark" Results 1761 - 1780 of 19,816
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Sep 2010, 5:54 pm by INFORRM
“El Mundo” had verified with the company’s former accountant that the accounts were genuine and quoted him using quotation marks. [read post]
11 Jun 2011, 2:35 am
But the Fourth Amendment itself imposes these costs, in this Monday's National Law Journal: June 19 marks the 50th anniversary of Mapp v. [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 6:55 pm
  Earlier this year the Supreme Court examined the responsibility to appoint counsel in the Texas case Rothgery v. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 4:43 am
This is, of course, true for companies based in the territory of a State which is not a member of the EU, but also for the non-member States themselves, since those States are, within the meaning of EU law, public law entities. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 7:33 am
Moreover, there is no evidence that any United States marks come as close to VOGUE as Applicant’s EVOGUE mark. [read post]
4 Sep 2023, 2:04 am by Alessandro Cerri
The Court, however, applying the principles of construction established in Arnold v Britton, Wood v Capita and Rainy Sky, found that on a correct construction, the 1997 licence only licensed Ford’s US federal trade marks, and not any others. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), and Lane v. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 5:00 am by Mike Madison
As the Supreme Court said in United States v. [read post]
6 Apr 2022, 3:55 am
Priority: Applicant ADOL proved that it first used the subject marks in the United States in April 2004. [read post]