Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 1961 - 1980
of 21,680
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Nov 2023, 1:26 pm
In Trek Bicycle Corp. v. [read post]
14 Aug 2014, 8:35 am
If you litigate cases in the NC Business Court, mark your calendar for October 1st. [read post]
19 Nov 2015, 7:48 pm
V. [read post]
6 Sep 2008, 2:20 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Nov 2023, 8:27 am
Case Citation: Duffer v. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 5:50 pm
Mark Vinall is a barrister at Blackstone Chambers. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 8:19 am
" Hy Cite Corporation v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 10:23 am
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 11:21 am
Quinn and Friedrichs v. [read post]
16 Apr 2014, 2:24 pm
Yesterday marked the latest, and perhaps nearly final, step related to the legal travails of Todd Hoffner, the once and future head football coach at Minnesota State University, Mankato. [read post]
12 May 2010, 6:00 am
Jockey International Inc v Darren Wilkinson [2010] ATMO 22Jockey is the registered owner of a number of trade marks relating to underwear featuring JOCKEY as a component. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 4:22 am
for participation, by an act occurred in another Member State (Member State B), in violation of trade mark rights committed in the first Member State (Member State A )? [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 8:00 am
Brief of Amici Curiae Law Professors in Support of Defendant-Appellee at 1, SEC v. [read post]
13 Dec 2016, 2:50 am
Larry Lessig and Mark Meckler. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 4:01 am
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. [read post]
2 Apr 2020, 8:06 am
VIP therefore was entitled to judgment in its favor on the federal and state law dilution claims. [read post]
6 May 2020, 3:46 am
Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. [read post]
2 May 2016, 9:49 am
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board and Mark Dreher. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 4:24 am
Further, the Court stated that it is an established principle of settled case-law that, as a general rule, the submission of facts and evidence by the parties remains possible after the expiry of the relevant time limits, and the EUIPO is not prohibited from taking account of such facts and evidence (mobile.de v EUIPO, C‑418/16 P).In this case, it was accepted by both parties that Mr Noah had submitted the first evidence of use of the Mark within the time limit… [read post]
17 Jun 2024, 8:55 am
(SFFA) v. [read post]
