Mr. Chief justice, and may i please the court, it is a fundamental principle of the trademark law no party can make a trademark for a generic term. As explained a generic term is never entitled to trademark protection no matter how much money and effort the user has poured into the merchandise and in securing public identification. In other words, second remaining as required for distinctiveness is simply irrelevant to the generic term. That principle here is undisputed that its generic for the Reservation Service is responding. They couldnt really register the name or the addition of an entity designation to an unprotected term doesnt create a protectable mark. Thats because the terms implicates those in the association oassociation or paro deal with the relevant goods. A doctor from obtaining a trademark enterprise and shorter party can monopolize a generic term. The result should apply to booking. Com. It is the online equivalent of company and can use only the services of a commerc
Hes, 16, 78. Hernandez. Mr. Chief justice merkels report. When this case was spurs argue to this for two years ago. Counsel responded, and council for the United States, were both asked for the petitioners would have if Sergio Hernandez was standing on u. S. Soil when he was shot and killed by respondents . Well said yes. It wasnt for the score today, is whether in action is nonetheless foreclose. Because in this case. Sergio ascending on a few phoenix of the Mexican Border at the time he was shot. For two reasons we believe that it isnt. First. The fortuitous of where a victim is standing does not affect trigger any of the special factors. Identified by responders or the United States. Most importantly. It is difficult to see how Foreign Relations could be a special factor for including a bevin suit here. If it wouldnt have precluded acclaim if he wasnt standing just a few feet away. Moreover the governments would dramatically undermine u. S. Foreign relations in diplomacy is, belied
I did get the shot today for reasons that dont matter. I got it yesterday after the doctor suave my nose. He confirmed fear that test, that i have influenza. Im a highly knowledgeable person, i could not even know that war was a test to confirm i had a flu. And what strayed it was. We need more education here at home for ourselves, about the basics of where the science is right now. The game in the shot again. The flu shot. Even though the season is going to end. I cant use any of the other stuff. Because im too far into the infection. I just wanted to say, we need education at home and abroad. Got a barbara, thank you. That is a great idea. I really like it. Getting those short psas and animations out there, its something we have done with our members and activists around the world. Getting in front of millions of people is really tough. I did want to comment that this is one of the things that other partners on the ground due to tell communities there is going to be a vaccine day. Th
Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court. When this case was first argued to this court two years ago, counsel for respondent and counsel for the United States were asked if they were standing on u. S. Soil when he was shot and killed. Both said yes. The question before this court today is therefore whether the sacks nevertheless foreclosed because in this case, sergio was standing a few feet to the mexican side of the border at the time he was shot. For two reasons we believe that it isnt. First, where the victim is standing does not in fact trigger any of the special factors counsel, identified by the respondent or the United States. Most importantly it is difficult to see how Foreign Relations could be a special factor concluding if it wouldnt have been the claim if he had been standing a few feet away. It is belied by the long history of successful tort claims against federal Law Enforcement officers including cases in which the victim was a foreig r er harmed on foreign soil. No
Right with any ability to venture beat on the curtilage with a a firearm even locked ad unloaded, a matter of government grace period that he is inconsistent with text, history, tradition and this court cases. The text of the Second Amendment protects rights to keep and bear arms. That latter right makes clear that the Second Amendment protects rights that are not strictly limited to the premises. There is no historical analog for the cities prohibition on transporting firearms to places where the may be lawfully use. To the contrary, the Second Congress required the militia to take their own firearms from their homes to the training ground. The regulations on limiting where firearms may be discharged or were training may occur that the city invokes both underscore that the general rule was that firearms could be safely transported between and among places way they could be used and discharge. This court recognized as much in heller, both by recognizing the long history of handgun poss