Search for: "IN RE A W-M"
Results 1781 - 1800
of 4,155
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Nov 2015, 6:18 am
I’m not saying a hundred percent, but very often with technical statutes, that’s how it works. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 10:24 am
A: I’m sorry for your family’s suffering. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 9:17 am
But—at least when the endorsers aren’t savvy as the Kardashians—they’re often just like the other people in their social circles—they find some things intuitive and some things confusing; they’re neither robots nor children. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 7:48 am
I’m not clear on why that’s the troublesome outcome of the slippery slope.] [read post]
27 Oct 2015, 1:05 pm
But, whether you’re the President of the U.S. or your company, it is not enough to just announce a policy and do nothing. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 3:30 pm
Colon has also clerked for the Honorable Julio M. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 1:07 pm
A brief review of the justifications usually given for the exclusions for marks that are scandalous or disparaging: (1) the harm done by the government endorsement represented by a registration; (2) the desire to withhold government resources from disparaging or scandalous terms; (3) the lack of any effect on a user’s ability or right to use the mark, with (a) possible §43(a) or state common law protection against confusing uses despite unregistrability, though this is not at all… [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 12:37 pm
William & Mary Student Intellectual Property Society SymposiumA Right to Register: A discussion of First Amendment Implications of the Trademark Registration Process Overview: Dean Laura Heymann, W&M Law: TMs reduce consumer search costs. [read post]
22 Oct 2015, 2:10 pm
I’m going to be sending it back to Congress. [read post]
21 Oct 2015, 4:52 pm
W. [read post]
21 Oct 2015, 2:54 pm
See In re Riverbed Tech., Inc. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 4:01 pm
What is Reactive Arthritis or Reiter’s Syndrome? [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 2:03 pm
We’ve struggled w/ the relevance of consent. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 11:28 am
I’m also a fan of Rogers v. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 8:47 am
They’re all expressive. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 6:18 am
I’m not a gambler. [read post]
12 Oct 2015, 3:25 pm
The court in Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner [2014] IEHC 310 (18 June 2014), questioned whether the Directive and the EU Commissioner’s Decision needed to be re-evaluated in the light of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and whether the Commissioner could look beyond or otherwise disregard the Community finding. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 6:06 am
” In the same vein, Justice Elena Kagan asked him [W]hat’s the standard? [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 12:45 am
Der wirtschaftliche Schaden in Europa wäre immens, wenn amerikanische Angebote nicht mehr genutzt werden könnten. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 6:10 am
Strafrechtlich gesehen ist nicht überraschend, dass auch ein Retweet zu einem Strafverfahren führen kann: «Dem auf Internetfragen spezialisierten Rechtsanwalt Martin Steiger ist nicht bekannt, dass in der Schweiz schon einmal ein Twitterer wegen eines blossen Retweets vor dem Richter gelandet wäre. [read post]
