Search for: "United States v. Schwimmer" Results 1 - 20 of 35
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jun 2018, 10:56 am by Maurice W. McLaughlin
Enforceable contracts are so important to the economy, in fact, that the freedom to contract is included in both the New Jersey and United States Constitutions. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 10:56 am by Maurice W. McLaughlin
Enforceable contracts are so important to the economy, in fact, that the freedom to contract is included in both the New Jersey and United States Constitutions. [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 11:45 am by Steve Baird
Yet, keeping scandalous and immoral matter outside the contours of the United States trademark registration program has been part of federal law even longer, going all the way back to the 1905 Act, so there is a large mountain to climb in saying the Constitution has been violated as part of the federal government’s trademark registration program for more than 100 years. [read post]
22 Jul 2016, 8:37 am by Andrew Hamm
During his stint at the Department of Justice, Sanford also participated in the only criminal trial ever held by the Supreme Court: United States v. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 6:06 am by Eugene Volokh
The “thought that we hate” phrase, by the way, comes from Justice Holmes’s dissent in United States v. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 7:27 am
This is a big question, taking into account the litigation of Cuban trade marks in the United States [Only accepted in TTAB proceedings: see "TTABlog Guest Comment: Marty Schwimmer on TTAB's "CUBITA" Summary Judgment Under The Pan American Convention"]. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 1:22 pm by Marty Schwimmer
The Court stated the question as: 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]
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, 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]
3 Dec 2014, 9:54 am by Ron Coleman
  And a federal court has recently agreed, because on April 10, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that A’lor is barred from infringing CHARRIOL cable trademarks by selling ALOR jewelry that uses such cable. [read post]
20 Apr 2014, 4:35 pm
The courts in the United States do not recognize the "well-known  mark" basis for relief (but see Grupo Gigante v. [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 8:05 pm by Ron Coleman
 ”Because the University of Alabama is a state entity, it cannot be joined in a case in federal court. [read post]