英語 での Plaintiff's の使用例とその 日本語 への翻訳
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
-
Programming
Plaintiff's trademark right.
By this case, the plaintiff's action succeeded.
Plaintiff's Lawyer:"Have you ever dealt with an attorney?".
Counts 45, 46, and 48 of Plaintiff's complaint are DISMISSED.
The plaintiff's claims have not yet been proven in court.
人々も翻訳します
Google also agreed to pay the plaintiff's lawyers more than $5 million.
The plaintiff's attorney will go first, followed by the defendant's attorney.
As of June 25, 2008,fewer than 2,700 claimants responded to the settlement, for which the plaintiff's attorneys expressed disappointment.
Defendants' use of plaintiff's image and likeness caused damage to plaintiff. .
Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys,has analyzed Plaintiff's request and conducted a searched for responsive records.
The plaintiff's average nomination of a‘fair' figure was $17,700 higher than the defendant's.
The Own Name Defence proved to be the defendant's ultimate trump card towards succeeding in defending their case,rising above the other facts in the plaintiff's favour and eventually swaying the court's decision.
S-1, filed July 26, 1993, and Plaintiff's Second and Third Motions for Partial Summary Judgment(Trademark Infringement and Lanham Act Violations) as to Defendant Frena Doc.
It is common knowledge that a lawsuit settlement can absorb considerable amounts of time and financial resources,that is why some financers buy a part of the plaintiff's anticipated settlement to keep them from going bankrupt.
In Plaintiff's estimation, the cooperation to be provided by Deutsche Bank will substantially assist Plaintiffs in the prosecution of their claims against the non-settling defendants.
However, Europe's highest court disagreed,finding Google was processing the plaintiff's personal data by indexing and serving search results, and thus the plaintiff could go to Google to have it removed.
To rebut the plaintiff's contention, the defendants contended that their safety IV catheters have their own safety device that includes their own needle guard and locking means, which according to the defendants meant their products did not infringe the plaintiff's patent.
Defendant's Trademark Registrations in Classes 9 and 21 The Plaintiff claimed that it had begun using a"Yellow Elephant" trademark"The Plaintiff's trademark" in the early 1990s for rubber gloves, in particular, black industrial rubber gloves.
In Roho, the defendant purchased the plaintiff's wheelchair cushions on the open market, removed plaintiff's labels therefrom, and fastened them together to make bed mattresses.
Upon discovering the existence of the ROSE LADY mark in the market, the Plaintiff instituted a case against the Defendant claiming that it had infringed the LADY ROSE mark by importing and offering for sale the allegedly infringing products and that the Defendant had passed off the said products as the Plaintiff's goods.
The Defendant, however, denied the Plaintiff's allegations and stated, among others, that OBI and the Defendant were separate entities, and it did not know why OBI had abandoned registration of the GS Premium mark.
The High Court found that the Plaintiff was an aggrieved party in this case based on, amongst others, the evidence of the use of the Plaintiff's mark in Malaysia since 1996, which clearly proved that the Plaintiff was the first user and common law proprietor of the Plaintiff's mark for batteries.
The Plaintiff's mark The Defendant's mark The Plaintiff opposed the applications for the Defendant's mark at the IP office and when it failed, it initiated these appeals at the High Court to challenge the decision of the Trademark Registrar to allow the marks to co-exist.
Most interestingly was the argument put forth by the Defendant that the Plaintiff's customers are not Singaporeans, and that sailors or others aboard ships passing through Singapore would not constitute a material market for the purpose of determining whether the mark was well-known in Singapore.
This time the plaintiff sought an increase in the amount of compensation for damages, but because the interlocutory judgment acknowledged the plaintiff's indication itself to be famous, and the actions of the defendant were ongoing even after the first trial judgment, there is the real possibility that the amount of compensation will be increased.
The court was of the view that the Plaintiff's use of the hashtag is merely"a functional tool to direct the location of Plaintiffs' promotion so that it is viewed by a group of consumers, not an actual trademark.
Further, since the Plaintiff was still using the Plaintiff's mark for its products in Malaysia, and the Defendant's mark is registered for the same products, the Plaintiff's business was adversely affected by the Defendant's mark.
Seeing as the Defendant was aware of the Plaintiff's prior ownership and rights in the Plaintiff's mark, the Court was convinced that the Defendant's registrations had been obtained by fraud, which satisfied the first condition to lift the Defendant's corporate veil.
He has argued that the Plaintiff's product utilizes scraping action using the scraper blades and wire brushes. Further the Defendant's designs allow the WDI to be installed onto structures which are not vertical and cup fins cause it to have negative lift so as to drive deeper.