Search for: "State v. Good Bear"
Results 161 - 180
of 5,134
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Aug 2020, 8:15 am
In a recent trademark passing off case, TFI Foods Ltd. et al. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2013, 8:19 pm
Hardy, and United States v. [read post]
4 Oct 2013, 4:03 am
The Clorox Company v. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 2:26 am
Berger & Co. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2007, 5:10 am
State v. [read post]
29 Jun 2007, 2:32 pm
State v. [read post]
28 Oct 2021, 8:12 am
In so ruling, the Second Circuit reiterated that the plaintiff rather than the defendant in a trademark infringement claim bears the burden of proving the likelihood of consumer confusion, and that no particular order of analysis is required as long as the court considers all appropriate factors (Hamilton International Ltd. v. [read post]
30 Oct 2021, 9:26 pm
Supreme Court on the Second Amendment to right to bear arms, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
8 Aug 2020, 12:55 am
In Baldassi & Others v. [read post]
28 Oct 2016, 4:05 am
In Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center v. [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 6:02 am
The first and third questionsIn terms of assessing ‘genuine use’, the CJEU first noted that, according to Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (C–40/01), the fact that a mark is not used for goods newly available on the market but rather for goods that were sold in the past does not mean that its use is not genuine. [read post]
11 Jul 2014, 5:00 am
See Pinsonneault v. [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 2:01 am
The state of the register alone is not sufficient evidence – it all comes down to use in the market. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 5:47 am
Great British Teddy Bear Co. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 12:31 pm
For example, in Coach, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 4:27 pm
SEC v. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 7:24 am
However TOP Logistics, in providing a warehouse service for goods bearing another’s trade mark, did not 'use a sign identical to that trade mark for goods or services identical or similar to those in respect of which the mark is registered'.* Accordingly, Article 5 must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark registered in one or more Member States may oppose a third party placing goods bearing that trade… [read post]
2 Dec 2012, 9:30 pm
The case of United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 1:16 am
Repackaging branded goods can be a legitimate way to resell branded goods in a different jurisdiction, avoiding the potential confusion of where the goods actually originate from (and whether they are counterfeit). [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 1:16 am
Repackaging branded goods can be a legitimate way to resell branded goods in a different jurisdiction, avoiding the potential confusion of where the goods actually originate from (and whether they are counterfeit). [read post]
