Search for: "Shoe Show, Inc" Results 101 - 120 of 518
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Apr 2013, 7:53 am by Dennis Crouch
But when I showed the slide with the molded shoe patent the pens went down and the eyebrows went up. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 10:00 am by Maggie Sicklinger
Since 1997, Fortune Dynamic, Inc. has distributed women’s shoes under the mark DELICIOUS. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 12:33 pm by Catherine M. Clayton
”Yums further argues that Nike failed to carry its “heavy burden” of showing mootness, and notes that the lower court’s decision is inconsistent with “the strong federal policy favoring the full and free use of ideas in the public domain,” citing to Lear, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 12:33 pm by Catherine M. Clayton
”Yums further argues that Nike failed to carry its “heavy burden” of showing mootness, and notes that the lower court’s decision is inconsistent with “the strong federal policy favoring the full and free use of ideas in the public domain,” citing to Lear, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 8:12 pm by Melissa Morales
Assuming that Louboutin’s trademark is valid, Louboutin would have to show that Yves Saint Laurent’s red sole shoe is or is likely to cause consumer confusion and deception among consumers. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 7:16 am by Donna Eng
  As stated by the Eleventh Circuit in Hipp, to prove constructive discharge, a plaintiff must show that the employment conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s shoes would have been compelled to resign. [read post]
23 Sep 2007, 7:44 pm
REV. 887, 900 (1988).[11] See http://www.louisvuitton.com (last visited Sep. 21, 2007).[12] Cartier, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 1:38 am by John L. Welch
In re Jonathan Drew, Inc. d/b/a Drew Estate (January 28, 2011) [precedential]. [read post]
19 Feb 2009, 3:21 pm
The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls issued a Federal Register notice, printed today, that lifted the 1997 statutory debarment of AdComm, Inc. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 7:04 am by David Oscar Markus
§ 924(e)(1), which applies to a defendant convicted under § 922(g) who has three previous convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses.The question is whether “building of Richie’s Shoe Store, Inc. [read post]