Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 1861 - 1880
of 19,483
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 May 2007, 1:32 am
State Farm contended the assignment made the SBA the real party in interest. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 8:37 am
Cf., e.g., TCPIP Holding v. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 3:44 am
ARSA Distributing, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 3:24 pm
The case of State v. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 3:24 pm
The case of State v. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 2:57 am
It states that the dotted lines are used to “merely depict placement of the mark” on the packing backer card. 37 C.F.R. [read post]
18 Nov 2007, 8:47 pm
He was State v. [read post]
18 Nov 2007, 8:47 pm
He was State v. [read post]
12 Sep 2018, 1:48 pm
Thus, not only would proponents of liberal constitutional change need to secure ratification from all states where she crossed the 40% mark – a group including states such as Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas – they also would have to pick up five states that voted more than three-to-two against Senator Clinton. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 5:08 am
* Swedes consider the "penal value" of a trade mark infringementProsecutor General v CS (Case B-5484-13) is a trade mark infringement ruling where the Swedish Supreme Court addresses criminal consequences of IP infringement. [read post]
19 Jul 2020, 9:15 am
Below are excerpts taken from the Summary of the Argument and the introduction to the Argument in the amicus filing by Mark Lemley and other professors. [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 8:24 am
The case, U.S. v. [read post]
2 May 2012, 3:00 am
The case of the day is AFL Telecommunications, LLC v. [read post]
4 Jul 2024, 9:01 pm
United States deserves a similar label because it turns the Constitution on its head and marks a low point in the American experiment in self-government under law. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 7:07 am
See State v. [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 3:59 am
Blocking injunctions (at least for trade marks, but surely for copyright infringement too?) [read post]
1 Jul 2012, 11:01 pm
The delay question came up in passing in Footnote 3 of United States v. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 9:28 am
In The Patissier LLP v Aalst Chocolate Pte Ltd [2019] SGIPOS 10, the Applicant (The Patissier LLP) sought to revoke the mark(“Subject Mark”) registered in the name Aalst Chocolate Pte Ltd, on the ground of non-use under S 22(1)(a) and (b) of Singapore’s Trade Marks Act (“TMA”). [read post]
29 Jul 2024, 9:03 am
Court of Appeals to Hear Early Voting Challenge Appeal Tomorrow The state’s highest court will hear arguments tomorrow at 11:00 AM in Stefanik v. [read post]
6 Jun 2022, 1:22 pm
The case is Stephen Thaler v. [read post]
