Search for: "United States v. Edward"
Results 2001 - 2020
of 2,278
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2009, 7:04 pm
The right to counsel under Edwards v. [read post]
21 Jun 2009, 10:00 pm
(Spicy IP) Israel English version of Israel patent database available (The IP Factor) Israel Patent Office gears up for filing online (The IP Factor) Adjudicator of IP rules AMERICAN APPAREL lacks distinguishing features (The IP Factor) ‘Ein Gedi’ not acceptable as a word mark (The IP Factor) Japan Japan starts new patent prosecution highways with Austrian Patent Office and IP Office of Singapore (Managing Intellectual Property) Libya Libya cuts trade mark filing… [read post]
14 Jun 2009, 10:07 am
Commuters Unite! [read post]
14 Jun 2009, 4:36 am
United States, 436 U.S. 128, 138, 98 S. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 2:53 am
Chrysler LLC (PDF 16 KB)Supplemental Document as Filed by the United States in the U.S. [read post]
27 May 2009, 8:02 pm
Edward F. [read post]
26 May 2009, 11:51 am
The Court concludes that the Jackson rule does not "pay its way," United States v. [read post]
26 May 2009, 11:51 am
The Court concludes that the Jackson rule does not "pay its way," United States v. [read post]
25 May 2009, 7:15 am
&& 27-35, on file in State v. [read post]
23 May 2009, 11:28 am
"Law reports in the United States. [read post]
23 May 2009, 7:20 am
Edwards v. [read post]
22 May 2009, 1:44 am
DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCriminal Practice
Court Explains Restitution Rulings, Settlement In Case Against Gambino Crime Family Members
United States v. [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:09 pm
New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:24 am
’ (China Law Blog) Europe ECJ finds similar marks on wine and glasses not likely to cause confusion: Waterford Wedgewood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) AG Colomer opines in Maple leaf trade mark battle: joined cases American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates SA (IPKat) (Excess Copyright) CFI: Restitutio and time limits: how does the law stand now for CTMs? [read post]
16 May 2009, 4:00 am
United States v. [read post]
14 May 2009, 9:51 pm
United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911) the Supreme Court of the United States found Standard Oil guilty of entering into contracts in restraint of trade and monopolizing the petroleum industry through a long convoluted series of anticompetitive actions. [read post]
5 May 2009, 1:56 pm
E.g., State v. [read post]
3 May 2009, 8:45 am
United States v. [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 1:34 pm
Here is how it starts: After the United States Sentencing Commission decided to give retroactive effect to its recent amendment to the crack-cocaine guidelines, Edward Dryden moved under 18 U.S.C. [read post]
26 Apr 2009, 6:16 pm
United Kingdom (1980), 3 E.H.R.R. 408 (Comm.), at p. 415, applied in Re F (in utero), supra. [read post]
