Search for: "United States v. Bayer"
Results 61 - 80
of 294
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Sep 2016, 8:30 am
MacPherson v. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 9:46 am
Clevert, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Supreme Court Special Master Kristin Linsley, and Native American law specialist Robert Saunooke. [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 6:01 pm
The “[p]laintiffs in all of the actions currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (except for Williams et al v. [read post]
11 Jul 2016, 4:00 am
It is currently unknown whether Rheingold will file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
11 May 2016, 4:03 am
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Belmora LLC v Bayer Consumer Care AG, et al., Appeal No. 15-1335 (4th Cir. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 7:53 pm
Bayer Consumer Care AG and Bayer Healthcare LLC No. 15-1335 (4th Cir. 2016), which John summarizes on his own blog here, that its reading of the Lanham Act is the rigorous one, and that it is in fact following the teaching of Lexmark International, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 5:17 am
Belmora LLC v. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 2:44 am
Belmora LLC v. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 5:19 am
See Larkin v. [read post]
23 Jan 2016, 8:47 pm
See Smith v. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 6:55 am
– United States District Court – District of New Jersey – December 8th, 2015 – This is a products liability case involving a work platform. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 4:00 am
The Federal Court of Appeal in Bayer Schering Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 5:32 am
Byrd v. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 5:00 am
At minimum, there’s now a circuit split, which might be a reason for the United States Supreme Court to review the issue.This “common defense exception” to fraudulent joinder can loom large in our drug/device cases. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 6:23 am
In Downing v. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 12:23 pm
* The IPKat weblog and the European Patent Office: some points of clarificationMerpel and you need to talk.* Offering a service is not use in commerce Under Lanham Act, says Federal Circuit Court Blogger and recent guest Kat Marie-Andrée Weiss explains the ruling in David Couture v Playdom, a Federal Circuit's decision that highlights a difference of approach between the trade mark law of the United States and that of the European Union as regards the… [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 2:55 am
However, last week’s High Court, England and Wales, ruling in Enterprise v Europcar [2015] EWHC 300 (Ch) shows this is by no means a settled area, explains katfriend Jeremy Blum(Bristows LLP).* The Richemont ruling and beyond: dealing with counterfeit websites and the intermediaries that host themKatfriend Tim Behean provides another insightful analysis of Cartier International AG and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others [2014] EWHC 3354… [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 12:23 pm
The Court stated the question thus: Does the Lanham Act allow the owner of a foreign mark that is not registered in the United States and further has never used the mark in United States commerce assert priority rights over the mark that is registered in the United States by another party and used in United States commerce? [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 10:58 am
Belmora LLC v. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 3:06 am
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reversed the TTAB's ruling in Bayer Consumer Care AG v. [read post]
