Search for: "California v. Marks"
Results 161 - 180
of 4,347
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2011, 8:38 pm
A federal court in New York, after thinking through the issue thoroughly, has decided that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is domiciled in California. [read post]
14 Oct 2019, 4:15 am
District Court for the Central District of California recently issued a decision in the closely watched Patagonia, Inc. v. [read post]
24 May 2018, 7:35 am
Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Dec 2015, 4:00 am
Mark Baptist Church of Pittsburg v. [read post]
13 May 2015, 6:30 am
Even if the California courts didn’t wish to go that far (this was, after all, three years before Brown v. [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 2:45 pm
See Sargon Enters., Inc. v. [read post]
31 May 2008, 8:11 pm
In June, we will be marking the fifth anniversary of the U.S. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 9:39 am
District Court for the Northern District of California have recently released opinions in intellectual property cases, among them: Wall Mountain Co. v. [read post]
30 Aug 2021, 8:55 am
Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 10:40 am
In Scott P. v. craigslist, Inc., the plaintiff claims someone posted bogus ads under his name and that craigslist promised to "take care of it" by removing the fake ads immediately. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 8:20 am
[The Board granted a petition to cancel five registrations for the marks EDGE, THE EDGE, GAMER'S EDGE, and CUTTING EDGE for video games, printed matter, and related goods and services, in view of a final judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Edge Games, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2008, 1:21 am
The case is titled Nike, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 3:33 pm
” The court relied on the California Supreme Court decision in Chamberlain v. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 12:58 am
Hodge v. [read post]
13 Aug 2022, 6:31 am
In addition, even though the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of likelihood of confusion, it also concluded that the district court erred in adopting a rule excluding any consideration of a senior user’s post-infringement use of the mark and erred in certain aspects of its analysis, including how the court weighed strength of the mark and Bacardi’s intent (Lodestar Anstalt v. [read post]
28 Jan 2012, 4:11 pm
Sources: United States Patent and Trademark Office United States Patent and Trademark Office-Trademarks Home California Secretary of State-Trademarks and Service Marks Model State Trademark Law/CA. [read post]
1 May 2017, 9:37 am
If anything, the situation is getting worse with the recent decision in Augustus v. [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 11:53 am
It seems like Mark V. [read post]
21 Feb 2020, 10:15 am
This week in Other Barks & Bites: The CAFC issued a precedential decision in Arctic Cat Inc. v. [read post]
20 Jan 2017, 1:30 pm
(Arnold v. [read post]
