Search for: "Brown v. Shoe" Results 161 - 180 of 232
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2023, 1:27 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Ornamentality exceptions, like LTTB, versus dog toys & shoes, which are not seen as the same—wrestling with speech v. product v. conduct. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 12:01 am by Transplanted Lawyer
  While in the abstract, I have some difficulty with Attorney General Brown refusing to defend an amendment to the state's constitution, I confess that were I in his shoes and tasked with [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 1:24 pm
Cir. 2006) and quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 6:14 am
(Excerpts from “Blood Royal,” copyright Eric Jager, courtesy of Little, Brown and Company.) [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 8:00 am by Tim Sitzmann
The issues are similar to those in Ritz Hotel Ltd v. [read post]
20 May 2013, 4:23 am by Jon Gelman
MAY 13, 2013  Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh The undersigned parties are committed to the goal of a safe and sustainable Bangladeshi ReadyMade Garment ("RMG") industry in which no worker needs to fear fires, building collapses, or  other accidents that could be prevented with reasonable health and safety measures. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 11:00 am
: (Techdirt), A day in the life of an IP blog – WIPO magazine article about the blogging life of Jeremy Phillips: (Patent Baristas) Global - Trade Marks / Domain Names / Brands Droste effect packaging: (box vox), (Class 46), Against cyberproperty (and cybertrespass): (The Trademark Blog), Fabergé egg flip – Article on Fabergé  brand and protection strategy: (Afro-IP), Domain name tasting proposal passed by ICANN’s… [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 1:36 pm
’ paper by Graeme Clark SC (IP Down Under) Full Federal Court decision concerning brand reputation in context of ‘lookalike’ products and famous brands: Hansen Beverage Company v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd (Mallesons Stephen Jaques) Federal Court holds that grace period applicable to a ‘parent patent’ is different to that of its divisional ‘child’: Mont Adventure Equipment v Phoenix Leisure Group (IP Down… [read post]