Search for: "Direct Line, Inc."
Results 161 - 180
of 4,434
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jul 2014, 4:10 am
None of the allegedly offensive material was directed at Plaintiff. [read post]
9 Aug 2009, 12:02 am
Applicant Maxoly, Inc. feebly argued that its mark symbolizes the "Cuban culture" and that its clothing is "directed to the Cuban Community," but the Board found those arguments to be a crock. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 1:02 pm
by Dennis Crouch Illumina, Inc. and Sequenom, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2013, 5:00 am
Kennametal Inc., supra, at *6. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 7:47 pm
Kennametal Inc., supra, at *6. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 6:46 am
Pignato of Illinois filed an infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendants Mobileye, Inc. of Jericho, New York and its parent company Mobileye N.V. of Jerusalem, Israel. [read post]
4 Sep 2018, 5:00 pm
This bright line rule is in direct contrast to the flexibility of the Federal Rule, which calls for a determination on class certification “[a]t an early practicable time after a person sues or is sued as a class representative. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 10:26 pm
Alphabet thereby admits that her employer, NCO Financial Systems, Inc., did not create these records. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 11:10 am
By asking for a change in law along the lines of the concurrence, the lawyer would be effectively conceding that the good faith exception applies and his client cannot benefit from new rule. [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 5:00 am
American Commercial Lines, Inc., et al. [read post]
5 Mar 2023, 6:40 pm
by Dennis Crouch I’ve become somewhat callous toward patent eligibility jurisprudence and so was surprised when I read the Federal Circuit’s decision in ADASA Inc. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2014, 9:44 am
The Supreme Court reversed and rejected the three distinct approaches different circuit courts have taken for weighing whether a company can sue for false advertising: the broad “reasonable interest” test relied upon by the Sixth Circuit; the bright-line “direct competitor” test; and a five-part balancing test originally derived from antitrust law. [read post]
4 May 2010, 5:00 am
Pfizer, Inc., no. [read post]
7 Nov 2010, 9:01 pm
[Post by Venkat] Melaleuca, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2022, 6:35 pm
” Genentech, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 4:43 am
The bottom line of the case RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. [read post]
17 Nov 2016, 6:20 am
The employer requested supporting evidence in line with the test set out in Johnstone v Canada (Border Services Agency). [read post]
N.D. Cal.: Facebook Posts are Electronic Mail Messages, Subject to CAN-SPAM -- Facebook v. Maxbounty
1 Apr 2011, 8:30 am
Celebrity Cruises, Inc.) [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 12:37 pm
Accentra, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 3:19 pm
Earlier this year, in Montel Aetnastak, Inc. and Montel Inc. v. [read post]
