Search for: "Matter of Mark T." Results 301 - 320 of 16,437
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Aug 2012, 5:00 am by Benjamin Wittes
Military Commissions Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins gave the following brief remarks over the weekend in Chicago. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 5:25 am
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Matter of Mark P. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 8:26 pm
Or, you can email me at mark@blanelaw.com, or download any of my FREE Ebooks from this website. [read post]
17 May 2010, 6:45 am by Mandelman
Mandelman Matters Presents: ARE YOU READING THIS STUFF? [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 3:18 pm by Don Cruse
In this case, the federal Marks rule wouldn’t shed much light on the Texas Marks case — even if Texas courts had adopted that approach. [read post]
4 Apr 2018, 8:04 pm by Dennis Crouch
The brief is certainly not the best ever filed, but it raises important points: Scandalous Marks: The Government incorrectly asserts that the Clause only prohibits registration of marks that contain “profanity, excretory or sexual” matter — despite the plain language of the text. [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 8:11 am by Dan Bressler
District Court for the Middle District of Florida recommended approving that motion April 20, rejecting the argument that the matters aren’t substantially related. [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 4:40 am
Next, the Court referred to settled-case law (Cases T-19/99 Companyline; T-273/10 Olive Line) and affirmed that the use of the term “LINE” in combination with a registered trade mark can be perceived by the public as identifying the product line covered by such mark. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 1:00 pm by Benjamin Wittes
 I urge any inclined to rush to judgment on this matter to view a reformed military commission hearing on pre-trial motions. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 5:43 am
As Sven Klos remarked, having litigated the same provision of Benelux trade mark law (where the "substantial value" exclusion originates from) for 20 years, he still does not know what it is supposed to mean (and the CJEU's Hauck decision hasn't made this easier, has it). [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 4:45 am by SHG
But the position taken by BLM here, that it doesn’t matter what the evidence is or what the jury decides, isn’t going to get anyone on board. [read post]
11 Nov 2020, 2:19 am
Trademark Rule 2.72(a)(2) provides that, in a Section 1(a) application, an applicant may amend the drawing of the mark if "[t]he proposed amendment does not materially alter the mark" as depicted in the application drawing. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 1:40 pm by Shireen Smith
  But as a solicitor who advises SMEs on Internet, and IP matters, including trade mark filings, I am absolutely sure that encouraging SMES to file their own trade marks often doesn’t do them any favours. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 6:58 pm by Peter
” - Mark Twain - If we don’t confiscate all of the wealth of the super rich the deficit will increase next year. [read post]