Search for: "Marks v. Gas Service Company" Results 1 - 20 of 298
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jul 2011, 4:30 am
Following all the excitement this week over the high-tech aspects of European trade mark law where brand owners tussle with internet service providers over the extent to which hosted sales can and should be controlled by the latter, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) returned today to a very much less exalted and non-digital product -- refillable gas bottles. [read post]
14 Jan 2018, 11:32 pm
For those adding substantial value to the good, it is likely that companies will keep preferring the route of trade secrets (Hammersley 1998) and patents (e.g. [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 3:00 am by Dan Kelly
  The two companies offer, among other things, oil and gas well fracturing services (explanation here). [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 2:08 am
Council Directive 89/104 ... to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks to be interpreted in such a way that company B is guilty of an infringement of a trade mark if it fills gas bottles which originate from company A with gas which it then sells, where the following circumstances apply: 1. [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 12:37 pm by Bernard Bell
United States Citizenship & Immigration Services. 407 F.Supp.3d 311 (D.D.C. 2019); Knight First Amendment Institute v. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 7:30 am by Don Cruse
Advanced Digital Services; TMZ Productions, Inc.; EHM Production, Inc. d/b/a TMZ; TMZ.com; and Elizabeth McKernan v. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 6:15 am
In 2004, it began selling shirts and caps bearing the subject marks, purchasing the items from an Illinois company. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 4:38 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“Plaintiff Marks Paneth LLP seeks damages from defendantthird party plaintiff Economic Alchemy LLC, an intellectual property holding company, for its breach of a contract for expert services in a legal malpractice dispute. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 11:33 am by Lisa Ramsey
Although the court did not decide whether trademarks are commercial speech subject to “relaxed” constitutional analysis under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. [read post]