Search for: "State v. P. B." Results 2001 - 2020 of 6,784
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Aug 2022, 6:23 am by Felicia Boyd (US)
P. 12(b)(6) because, as a matter of law, the marks are not ornamental because they are associated with Penn State. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 4:08 am
 The Appellate Division quoted from the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 12:25 pm
’ Federal Ruleof Criminal Procedure Rule 32.2(b)(1)(B). [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 6:21 am by Riana Harvey
 However, the CJEU disagreed with the GC's conclusion that the absence of such a statement would preclude any association between those shops and the goods of the mark applied for.First, the CJEU emphasised that the line of authority derived from Praktiker concerned only applications for registration as TMs and did not concern protection of trade marks registered at the time of the Praktiker judgment (EUIPO v Cactus, C-501/15 P). [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 3:00 am by John Day
P. 37.02(B), an order prohibiting a party from introducing matters into evidence is one of the available remedies for a violation of an order made pursuant to Tenn. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 9:46 am by Meg Martin
You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 1:34 pm by Meg Martin
You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 8:57 am by Meg Martin
You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. [read post]