Search for: "Pom LLC" Results 101 - 120 of 208
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Oct 2015, 3:10 pm by Jeremy
Gund, subsidiary company of Enesco LLC (‘Enesco’), incorporated under the laws of the United States of America, develops and distributes toys. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 6:18 am by Adam Weinstein
FINRA found that LSCM, a third-party, reviewed the Seat Exchange offering including the private offering memorandum (POM). [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 5:14 am by Alexander Barthet
Haakenson found home improvement giant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC guilty of false advertising. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 5:14 am by Alexander Barthet
Haakenson found home improvement giant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC guilty of false advertising. [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 12:39 am by Jarod Bona
Supreme Court last week issued an interesting opinion on its scope in POM Wonderful LLC v. [read post]
4 Sep 2010, 2:13 pm by Kashmir Hill
The company never responded and Jones was awarded $11 million in a default judgment, according to Cincinnati.com.But Jones can’t start working her pom poms over the victory just yet. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 10:17 am by Bruce Colbath
POM Wonderful LLC (“POM”), a major producer and seller of a variety of pomegranate products, competes with the Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola”) in the pomegranate juice market. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 4:30 am by Steve McConnell
  In their Motion to Dismiss, the defendants contended that all of the plaintiff’s claims were preempted under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (our beloved "FDCA," the hook that permits us to discuss a case that is otherwise far afield from our usual stuff) and/or foreclosed by Pom Wonderful LLC v. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 10:15 am
The final intellectual property litigation to recently granted certiorari by the Court is POM Wonderful LLC v. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 1:40 pm by randal shaheen
By way of example, he cited to the FTC’s complaint against POM Wonderful, where the FTC accused POM of making unsubstantiated disease claims but did not allege it is a violation of Section 5 based on the absence of FDA approval. - Dan Kracov [read post]