Search for: "Matter of Mark T."
Results 301 - 320
of 16,544
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 May 2019, 1:17 am
Consumers, therefore, wouldn't necessarily understand the mark to automatically mean the provision of hotel booking services. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 3:24 am
Doesn't seem as long-running as a pandemic-related lockdown, but we are getting there.] [read post]
27 Oct 2019, 12:01 pm
Earlier this month, Advocate General (AG) Kokott handed down her Opinion in T-766/18 P, providing some indications regarding the distinctive character of collective and geographical collective trade marks and their interplay with geographical indications (GIs). [read post]
9 Aug 2021, 6:01 am
Mark Gold has a characteristically well-reasoned piece in The Art Newspaper as the AAMD's two-year experiment in allowing proceeds from art sales to finance “direct care” of their collections nears its close.The anti-deaccession view is presented as a matter of ethics, and, as Gold says, "unquestionably, preserving the objects entrusted to museums’ care is ethical. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 3:19 am
Wouldn't that restriction exclude movies about certain lawyers? [read post]
17 May 2010, 6:45 am
Mandelman Matters Presents: ARE YOU READING THIS STUFF? [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]
6 Aug 2012, 5:00 am
Military Commissions Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins gave the following brief remarks over the weekend in Chicago. [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]
30 Sep 2010, 3:18 pm
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
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
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]
26 Jan 2012, 2:04 pm
Stop using exclamation marks! [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
I urge any inclined to rush to judgment on this matter to view a reformed military commission hearing on pre-trial motions. [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 4:45 am
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]
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]
3 Aug 2018, 11:13 am
In July, public confidence in the president on national security matters dropped. [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]
11 Sep 2013, 10:25 am
"I have said for years that it doesn’t belong there. [read post]
