Search for: "State v. Glass"
Results 181 - 200
of 1,625
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 May 2011, 7:09 am
Co., Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 5:32 pm
R. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2019, 1:00 am
The mark scheme stated that such a claim could not be considered inventive because one of the prior art documents (D2) disclosed fuses with glass layers that were inherently configured to soften and flow. [read post]
22 Feb 2014, 6:00 am
United States, by Judith V. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 5:32 pm
R. v. [read post]
20 May 2015, 1:58 pm
95 N.Y.2d 368 740 N.E.2d 1075 718 N.Y.S.2d 1 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent-Appellant, v. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 2:15 pm
In May of 2017, the United States Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision in TC Heartland LLC v. [read post]
10 Feb 2019, 5:16 am
In United States v. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 7:37 pm
However, there was evidence that the Navajo Nation had used the mark on shot glasses, and the alleged misspelling was not sufficiently scandalous to state a dilution claim. [read post]
11 Mar 2009, 9:19 am
In State v. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 7:32 am
"[N]either [defendant] affirmatively sought dismissal or transfer because of the lack of 'resid[ence]' or the lack of a 'regular and established place of business' under § 1400(b) as interpreted by [Fourco Glass Co. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 1:37 pm
In Radio Systems Corporation v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 5:42 am
Well, Knepper v. [read post]
1 Jan 2017, 3:53 am
The case Rufo v. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 12:14 pm
The petitioners in that case, Elane Photography v. [read post]
30 May 2012, 6:36 am
See Betz v. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 11:39 am
In MacClatchey v. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 2:48 pm
See Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 9:34 am
" Yeager v. [read post]
22 May 2008, 11:08 pm
BOTELHO, Petitioners v. [read post]
