Search for: "STATE v. GASPAR" Results 41 - 60 of 80
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Aug 2021, 8:17 am by Linda O'Brien (CCH)
Thus, the judgment on the trademark infringement and false advertising claims were reversed and the case remanded (Select Comfort Corp. v. [read post]
The Federal Circuit also reiterated that the TTAB need not find that the German company owned U.S. trademark rights to bring a cancellation action (Piano Factory Group, Inc. v. [read post]
The Federal Circuit also reiterated that the TTAB need not find that the German company owned U.S. trademark rights to bring a cancellation action (Piano Factory Group, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2022, 6:48 am by Matthew Hersh (Wolters Kluwer)
Case date: 14 December 2021 Case number: No. 2021-1433 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
Case date: 14 September 2021 Case number: No. 20-3369 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
It remanded back to the district court to consider the infringement claim under the proper standard (Underwood v. [read post]
Case date: 19 May 2021 Case number: No. 20-30233 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
But in the meantime, it looks to be quite easy to infringe copyright. [1] Photo by davisuko on Unsplash [2] ATB Sales v Rich Energy & Ors [2019] EWHC 1207 (IPEC) More from our authors: Guide to EU and UK Pharmaceutical Regulatory Law, Eighth Edition by Sally Shorthose€ 265 Genuine Use of Trademarks, Second Edition by Eléonore… [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 11:54 am
The Mohawk’s detainee log shows that Gaspar Chichande refused five meals in a row, and that Cortez-Quinonez and DominguezCaicedo refused three meals in a row. [read post]
While the Court commented that they did not foresee imposing a general monitoring obligation on platforms, Arnold LJ stated that “Many providers wish to undertake content review for their own commercial reasons, however. [read post]
In the recent decision of the IPEC in Stone v Wenman, the court reiterated and applied some key principles in the law of passing off. [read post]
15 Jan 2024, 3:29 am by Verena von Bomhard (BomhardIP)
The other two are APE TEES (EUIPO v Nowhere, C-337/22 P) and SHOPPI (Shopify v EUIPO, C-751/22 P, see here and here)). [read post]