Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 101 - 120
of 21,389
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2015, 3:18 pm
Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/95 (the Trade Mark Directive) states that: “The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade: (a) his own name or address provided he uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 6:49 am
The Court then summarized the case law regarding the required proof:In addition, according to case-law, although it must be proved that a mark has acquired distinctive character through use throughout the European Union, the same types of evidence do not have to be provided in respect of each Member State (...).Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly held that there was insufficient proof of distinctive character acquired through use of a mark throughout the European Union… [read post]
5 Feb 2016, 1:00 pm
On February 4, 2015 the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in State of Ohio v. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 8:11 am
Williams, Questions Marks: Plurality Decisions and Precedential Constraint, which discusses lower courts' misuse of Marks v. [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 4:15 am
The judgment in Case C172/18 AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree v Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas addresses questions concerning jurisdiction, in particular in cases involving Internet sales. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 8:39 am
" Heathcote Holdings Corp., Inc. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 8:50 am
On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court announced its decision in United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 8:50 am
On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court announced its decision in United States v. [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 6:33 pm
Hamdard Trust v. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 8:10 am
After all, the government splits any award obtained with the relator.It appears, however, that the United States is finally acknowledging publicly that the trend of suits under 35 USC 292 has gone too far, given the rash of thinly pled false marking claims that have come to dominate the landscape since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Forest Group v. [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 3:45 pm
This morning the Court issued a per curiam opinion in United States v. [read post]
7 Sep 2018, 10:12 am
He used a case study from one of his successful cases, Oklahoma Genetics Inc. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2019, 9:55 am
Section 32(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 requires (at least for now) that a trade mark applicant must state its good faith intention to use the mark applied for. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 10:01 am
Recently, a defendant in a false marking case pending before the Western District of Pennsylvania (FLFMC v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 10:51 am
Rogers v. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 2:21 am
Fiat Group Automobiles S.p.A. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 4:20 pm
Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Aug 2022, 4:00 am
State v. [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 12:40 pm
Pequignot v. [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 1:28 am
Specifically, the Court noted that Recital 6 of the Directive states that “member states should also remain free to fix the provisions of procedure surrounding the registration, the revocation and invalidity of trade marks acquired by registration”. [read post]
