Search for: "Brand v. State"
Results 201 - 220
of 6,483
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Nov 2022, 4:05 pm
Co. v. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 4:05 pm
Co. v. [read post]
8 Oct 2012, 10:34 am
Hogue v. [read post]
22 May 2017, 12:37 pm
Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 6:28 pm
It was originally said that the two powerhouse brands would have a private mediation, however, after three years the case is now a full blown out feud. [read post]
12 Jan 2020, 9:00 am
United States and Romag Fasteners v. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 6:03 pm
Demahy v. [read post]
13 Jan 2018, 8:00 pm
Consider Hanberry v. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 2:47 pm
Meijer, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 2:29 pm
The intersection of free speech and private business branding is once again in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 9:59 am
Op., Varsity Brands, Inc., et al. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 9:59 am
Op., Varsity Brands, Inc., et al. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2019, 2:28 pm
Boldface Licensing + Branding v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 4:58 pm
Ct. 1187 (2009), the Supreme Court determined that state law failure-to-warn claims against brand name manufacturers were not preempted by federal law. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 8:17 am
V. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 9:06 pm
The attorneys will cover the costs and then “recover the money from Tiger Brands. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 1:58 pm
Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981). [read post]
13 Aug 2015, 10:56 am
Ct. at 2578-81.Mensing held that requesting FDA assistance would not have satisfied the manufacturer’s state law duty to provide adequate labeling as the manufacturer could then comply with state labeling requirements “if, and only if, the FDA and the brand-name manufacturer changed the brand-name label to do so. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 11:20 am
Now I'm just hoping they take down the State Department's evisa web site too. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 12:23 pm
The Court stated the question thus: Does the Lanham Act allow the owner of a foreign mark that is not registered in the United States and further has never used the mark in United States commerce assert priority rights over the mark that is registered in the United States by another party and used in United States commerce? [read post]
