Search for: "Mark C. Good"
Results 1921 - 1940
of 5,964
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Nov 2015, 10:03 am
There’s clearly a concern that if we extend this cause of action to false advertising, we’ll end up with anticompetitive effects, b/c pure aluminum washboard P could go after others w/perfectly good products that are only partially aluminum. [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 6:57 am
Continuative LLC filed no response to Sutherland's complaint.Under WIPO rules, a domain name complaint will fail unless the following cumulative requirements are met: (a) the respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights, (b) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and (c) the respondent's domain name has been registered and is being… [read post]
25 Nov 2020, 8:28 am
" The plain text of Section 206.00(c)(7)(D) clarifies that the subparts do not define "offensive to good taste and decency. [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 9:35 am
Susan C. [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 6:15 am
Prosecutor Mikeal Clayton rejoins, first by asking that Judge Spath look to the plain language of 5200.01 Section 8(c)(1), which requires the government to mark whether materials are classified or not “in accordance with the underlying materials. [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 5:27 pm
CONSENT TO REGISTER – SECTION 2(c) REFUSAL Connection with Goods/Services – TMEP §1206.02 The standard for determining whether the individual bearing the name in the mark will be associated with the mark as used on the goods/services is that: (1) the person is so well known that the public would reasonably assume a connection between the person and the goods/services; or (2) the individual is publicly connected with the… [read post]
17 May 2011, 9:55 pm
In relation to the issue of various quality marks, Robins concluded: But if—as consumers B and C imply—people assume all lawyers are competent, then why would they look for quality marks anyway? [read post]
24 Jul 2015, 12:14 pm
Or an agent could identify marks that were not quite as good but were usable until the register relaxed its standards. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 3:13 am
FD Management, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1629 (TTAB 2007) [precedential], where the Board stated:[C]ontrary to opposer's contention, an application will not be deemed void for lack of a bona fide intention to use absent proof of fraud, or proof of a lack of bona fide intention to use the mark on all of the goods identified in the application, not just some of them. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 4:51 pm
- New Jersey attorney Sandra C. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 10:53 am
Philip C. [read post]
1 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
C. [read post]
1 May 2008, 1:43 am
Recently I came across the judgment of Floyd J in Kapur v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2008] All ER (D) 142. [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 2:35 am
[this looks like good news for Interflora ...] [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 7:36 pm
§1052(c) a name in a trademark would identify a living individual if the person bearing the name will be associated with the mark when used on the goods or services because the person is so well known that the purchasing public would reasonably assume a connection with the person and the goods or services. [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 7:36 pm
§1052(c) a name in a trademark would identify a living individual if the person bearing the name will be associated with the mark when used on the goods or services because the person is so well known that the purchasing public would reasonably assume a connection with the person and the goods or services. [read post]
8 May 2019, 12:21 am
With respect to passing off, the plaintiff must establish: (a) reputation of the goods; (b) possibility of deception of the consumer; and (c) likelihood of loss. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 9:45 am
So what is Case C-495/07 Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli-Strickmode GmbH all about? [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 9:00 pm
” Yet while good advocates make such comparisons only rarely and with sensitivity, the objection is almost always misguided. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 4:59 am
The ECJ's ruling in Google France that neither the sale nor the use of terms protected by trade marks as keywords constituted a per se trade mark infringement didn't help them -- but that was a "5(1)(a)" case, where same goods/same mark (double identity) infringement was alleged. [read post]
