Search for: "F. Shaw" Results 161 - 180 of 449
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Apr 2017, 3:38 am
Klickitat Valley Chianina, LLC, Serial No. 76715490 (March 16, 2017) [not precedential] (opinion by Judge Shaw).The Board observed that "more evidence is required where a mark is so highly descriptive that purchasers seeing the matter in relation to the named good would be less likely to believe that it indicates source in any one party. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 7:43 pm
(Pix Wall Street Journal 28 Feb 2017)After a tumultuous first month in office--a month that appeared to solidify the great rifts among emerging political factions in  the U.S. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 3:40 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Jerry also advocated for a revision to Rule 23(f) to allow for an immediate right to appeal orders to certify, modify, or decertify a class. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 12:10 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Jerry also advocated for a revision to Rule 23(f) to allow for an immediate right to appeal orders to certify, modify, or decertify a class. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 3:09 am by Dennis Crouch
§ 271(f)(1) for supplying single component) Briefing: Impression Products, Inc. v. [read post]
Government Agencies Continue to Scrutinize the Scope of Non-Disclosure and Restrictive Covenant Agreements Fresh off of signing the DTSA, the Obama White House released a report entitled “Non-Compete Reform: A Policymaker’s Guide to State Policies,” which relied heavily on Seyfarth Shaw’s “50 State Desktop Reference: What Employers Need to Know About Non-Compete and Trade Secrets Law” and contained information on state policies related to the… [read post]
Government Agencies Continue to Scrutinize the Scope of Non-Disclosure and Restrictive Covenant Agreements Fresh off of signing the DTSA, the Obama White House released a report entitled “Non-Compete Reform: A Policymaker’s Guide to State Policies,” which relied heavily on Seyfarth Shaw’s “50 State Desktop Reference: What Employers Need to Know About Non-Compete and Trade Secrets Law” and contained information on state policies related to the… [read post]
16 Jan 2017, 5:44 pm by Dennis Crouch
§ 271(f)(1) for supplying single component) Briefing: Impression Products, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 7:01 am by John Elwood
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists Happy New Year, everyone! [read post]
11 Jan 2017, 7:19 am by Kate Howard
§ 1369(b)(1)(F), the portion of the Clean Water Act’s judicial review provision that requires that agency actions “in issuing or denying any permit” under Section 1342 be reviewed by the court of appeals, to decide petitions to review the waters-of-the-United-States rule, even though the rule does not “issu[e] or den[y] any permit” but instead defines the waters that fall within Clean Water Act jurisdiction. [read post]