Search for: "AutoZone, Inc."
Results 101 - 119
of 119
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Dec 2008, 3:21 pm
York, No. 07-0743 (per curiam) AutoZone, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 10:57 am
Although it is not a case that breaks new ground, today's per curiam opinion in Autozone, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2008, 11:48 pm
AutoZone, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2008, 7:06 pm
Applying this standard, the court held there was at least a genuine issue of fact regarding likelihood of confusion, and reversed the grant of summary judgment.More detail of AutoZone, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 6:00 pm
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
11 Sep 2008, 10:16 pm
AutoZone, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 2:00 pm
Autozone, Inc., the Second District California Court of Appeal held that a request for personal identification information in connection with a return of merchandise purchased with a credit card does not violate Civil Code §1747.08, otherwise known as the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, which prohibits a merchant from requesting or requiring personal identification information for a credit card payment. [read post]
23 Jul 2008, 4:12 pm
See, e.g., Dyna-Med, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2008, 6:43 pm
Autozone, Inc. et al. (2008), the California Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District, confirmed that California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, California Civil Code § 1747.08 (hereinafter, the “Act”) does not apply to a refund for the return of merchandise purchased by credit card. [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 12:07 pm
AutoZone, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Cal.App. [read post]
17 Apr 2008, 10:47 am
Oral Argument in case: 07-2136; Autozone, Inc v. [read post]
14 Oct 2007, 9:47 pm
Accord, AutoZone, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Aug 2007, 9:50 am
Autozone, Inc., on August 16, 2007 overruling the Oregon Court of Appeals and holding that a party who files a class action under in state court may file an interlocutory appeal under ORS 19.224 before a class has been certified. [read post]
27 Aug 2007, 7:06 am
Autozone, Inc., on August 16, 2007 overruling the Oregon Court of Appeals and holding that a party who files a class action under in state court may file an interlocutory appeal under ORS 19.224 before a class has been certified.... [read post]
16 Mar 2007, 4:34 am
AutoZone, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Feb 2007, 10:02 pm
Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, and AutoZone, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 10:28 pm
.” The court concluded that no reasonable trier of fact could find for plaintiff based on such evidence, again justifying dismissal on summary judgment.In the second case, AutoZone, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jan 2007, 4:10 am
AutoZone, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2006, 10:12 am
And all of these employers will need to pay attention to AB 1825, providing their California supervisors with at least two hours of interactive harassment prevention training in 2007.Just two days later, on October 4, the Commission announced three more employment discrimination lawsuits against the Atlanta Bread Co. restaurant chain (along with its owner, ARO Enterprises), BJ's Wholesale Club Inc. and auto-parts retailer, AutoZone Inc. [read post]
