Search for: "Power Marketing v. Ball"
Results 181 - 200
of 205
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Dec 2009, 6:48 pm
Drop the ball. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 8:04 pm
InfoUSA invokes the propitious power of common sense in case law. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 8:01 am
There's probably too much wheeling and dealing taking everyone's attention off the ball; the ball being, consumer safety.Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Armand Rossetti [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 8:01 am
There's probably too much wheeling and dealing taking everyone's attention off the ball; the ball being, consumer safety. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 5:05 pm
Hilen v. [read post]
4 May 2009, 1:57 am
S 4865 BLURB : Fam Ct. powers of the S.P.C.C. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 9:27 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: Obama Administration asked for ‘balance’ in intellectual property appointments (Public Knowledge) (Ars Technica) (Media Wonk) (EFF) (Law360) (Intellectual Property Watch) Senate Judiciary Committee passes Patent Reform Act of 2009 to Senate floor (Promote the Progress) (IP Watchdog) (Inventive Step) (Patent Baristas) (Patent… [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 12:22 pm
As I've argued elsewhere, the Supreme Court's decision in NYNEX applies in the patent holdup setting when (1) the patent holder has market power prior to the deception and (2) the deceptive conduct results in higher royalties but not exclusion of rival technologies. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 6:53 pm
Analysis During the presidential campaign, when Barack Obama went out for exercise, he was often wearing a ball cap displaying his loyalty to the Chicago White Sox. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 5:04 am
In light of the Supreme Court's rulings in Gall and Kimbrough, which had come down in the interim, the majority held in United States v. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 3:41 am
See Maxwell, 446 F.3d at 1216-17 (finding a market for child pornography and upholding congressional regulation of same); United States v. [read post]
28 Nov 2008, 12:14 pm
– Tackling music piracy in Africa (Afro-IP) Australia Patent infringement and account of profits: Black & Decker Inc v GMCA Pty Ltd (No 5) (IP Down Under) MONSTER ENERGY keeps battling: Hansen Beverage Company v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd (Australian Trade Marks Law Blog) High Court provides guidance on contributory infringement provision: Northern Territory v Collins (International Law Office) PricewaterhouseCooper report… [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 1:36 pm
(Financial Aspects of Intellectual Property) Climate change and Millenium Development Goals top agenda during UN Secretary General’s visit to WIPO (WIPO) Global - Trade Marks / Brands What every marketing department needs to know about trade marks (IP Spotlight) Forbes 2008 list of ‘Top-earning Dead Celebrities’ (Seattle Trademark Lawyer) Trade mark protection, broadcast rights vital for sports, say stakeholders (Intellectual Property Watch) How many drafts… [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 5:55 pm
While the costs may be explainable in some instances, the fact remains that many fans are priced out of the market, with very little they can do about it. [read post]
24 Jul 2008, 10:00 pm
Duphily, 703 A.2d 1202, 1209 (Del. 1997); Alabama Power Co. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2008, 10:04 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: Court reconsidering baseless ‘making available’ theory in file-sharing case Capitol Records v Jammie Thomas; amicus briefs from, MPAA, PFF: (Electronic Frontier Foundation), (Electronic Fontier Foundation), (Techdirt), (Ars Technica), (Patry Copyright Blog), (Patry Copyright Blog) ICANN approves rules allowing brands to be… [read post]
20 Jun 2008, 7:55 am
"I think the market is ready for that, and Howrey is now a well-recognized name in Northern California. [read post]
15 May 2008, 12:41 pm
Medtronic v. [read post]
15 May 2008, 12:41 pm
Medtronic v. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 6:00 pm
Signature Financial Group, Inc., and AT&T Corp. v. [read post]
