Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Trademark Act of 1905 A Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Patents is not a final judgment reviewable by the Supreme Court. A. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel: 260 U.S. 689: Jan. 29, 1923: Substantive Sale of trademark rights; Infringement Majority: Holmes: Trademark Act of 1905
Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (Supreme Court applied trademark distinctiveness spectrum to trade dress, arguably giving official sanction to the merger of the requirements for trademark and trade dress, noting that inherently distinctive trade dress required no showing of secondary meaning.)
Citing Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, the Supreme Court remanded this case to a Florida appellate court for consideration of whether arbitration was required for some of the claims alleged. Bobby v. Dixon: 10-1540: 2011-11-07 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (28 U.S.C. § 2254) and Harrington v.
The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it would rule against a man who wants to trademark the suggestive phrase “Trump too small.” The dispute is over the government's decision to deny a ...
The USPTO petitioned to the Supreme Court for review, which certified the case in November 2019. [7] The oral arguments for the case on May 4, 2020, were the first ever to be held via teleconference for the Supreme Court as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the arguments, the Justices raised questions of how an Internet address ...
WASHINGTON — No case is too small for the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the high court heard arguments in a dispute over whether a California lawyer can trademark the phrase “Trump too small ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday appeared skeptical that a California lawyer can own a federal trademark covering the phrase "Trump Too Small" over the objections of ...
Case Docket no. Question(s) presented Certiorari granted Oral argument Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra: 23-715: Whether the phrase "entitled ... to benefits," used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not ...