Search for: "MARKS v. UNITED" Results 101 - 120 of 10,995
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Oct 2019, 11:43 am by Marina Chafa
  Thus, when evaluating the marks in their entireties, the marks were not likely to be confused. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 11:00 am
On August 31, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Stauffer v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 2:04 pm by jleaming@acslaw.org
By Mark Hays, Campaign Coordinator for Public Citizen’s Democracy is for People Campaign, which is building public support for a constitutional amendment that would address the impact of Citizens United v. [read post]
11 Jan 2021, 4:15 am by IPWatchdog
’s (Weigel) registration of the mark W WEIGEL’S KITCHEN NOW OPEN on the ground that there was not likelihood of confusion with QuikTrip’s registered design mark, QT KITCHENS (QuikTrip West, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2019, 9:55 am
 Popular consensus suggests that Mr Gleissner does this with commercial gain in mind [and not for the sheer, heady love of trade mark procedure].Readers might remember Mr Gleissner from such previous trade mark actions as Sherlock Systems CV v Apple Inc (concerning 68 applications to revoke trade marks owned by Apple for non-use) and CKL Holdings Limited v Paper Stacked Limited (the "Alexander" case), which involved two of… [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 8:15 am by Erin Miller
There is no doubt that Citizens United v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 12:40 am
The challenge to secure registration is even greater because slogans are often treated merely as a form of advertisement rather than a source identifier (indeed, this might be the case even if the hashtag-based mark includes a well-known registered mark).Trade marks go socialPerhaps there is another way to view hashtag marks such as those above, based on the approach suggested by Judge Kozinski of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.In Plasticolor Molded… [read post]
13 Nov 2018, 12:24 am by Joseph Arshawsky
(“SMRI”) did not provide the jury with sufficient proof that its unregistered marks “Sturgis,” “Sturgis Motorcycle Rally,” and “Sturgis Rally & Races” marks were valid marks that acquired secondary meaning, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled, reversing a district court’s judgment that a gift shop and three individuals willfully infringed and diluted the marks. [read post]