Search for: "State v. Champagne"
Results 61 - 80
of 168
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Nov 2013, 7:33 pm
In United States ex rel Stone v. [read post]
14 Nov 2019, 6:43 am
It considers how the test is applied by national trade mark registries across EU member states, by the EUIPO, by national courts, and by the CJEU. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 5:02 am
In Enlow v. [read post]
30 Sep 2016, 6:53 am
Subsequently, the local police arrested defendant and recovered champagne and Diet Mountain Dew from the backpack.People v. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 7:34 am
Hanrahan v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 12:15 am
UNION-IP's summer champagne reception on 29 June 2016 at the Royal Society. [read post]
6 Feb 2017, 3:41 am
| The champagne of trade mark disputes | Around the IP Blogs! [read post]
14 Jul 2013, 10:37 pm
The case is Marin Asenov v. [read post]
22 Mar 2023, 1:09 pm
However, national courts of other EU Member States have recently found evocation between PDO “Champagne” and wedding services, or between PDO “Champagne” and restauration services. [read post]
5 Sep 2010, 7:12 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:52 am
Nevertheless, the newspaper repeated the defamation: in an article alongside a photograph of Watters the newspaper had stated: We may have to apologise to this revolting pervert but will we mean it? [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 12:16 am
A cautionary example of such a situation is the recent General Court judgment in Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO - MHCS (Nuance de la couleur orange) (T-652/22) concerning the orange colour trade mark for the Veuve Clicquot champagne. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 10:58 am
Krishnan v. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 10:58 am
Krishnan v. [read post]
2 Nov 2018, 10:48 am
See Hill v. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 1:29 pm
Mumm & Cie v. [read post]
20 Jan 2019, 11:43 pm
See United States v. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 6:43 am
They’re also obviously at risk of simply describing, in a laudatory manner, characteristics of the goods or services in question.CJEU Cases C-398/08 P Audi AG v OHIM (VORSPRUNG DURCH TECHNIK) and C-311/11 P Smart Technologies ULC v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH), already blogged by Jeremy hereand here, set out the position in Europe. [read post]
7 Mar 2023, 3:00 am
SE v. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 1:55 pm
Last week, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Burke in Petrovic v. [read post]
