Search for: "Little v. Ives" Results 201 - 220 of 1,634
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jan 2022, 2:16 pm by crimdefense@hotmail.com
(v) An individual to whom the person is related or was formerly related bymarriage. [read post]
14 Jan 2022, 1:49 pm by William B. Gould IV
Can you give us some background on the OSHA case that has gotten so much attention, National Federation of Independent Business v. [read post]
6 Jan 2022, 12:21 am by Eleonora Rosati
That it has now been so applied makes perfect sense and there is little reason to treat a domain name registration differently from a trade mark application in this context. [read post]
2 Jan 2022, 5:30 pm by INFORRM
The CMA guidance on environmental claims Although it seems all too easy for businesses to crow about their ‘green’ credentials, there is little clarity about the meaning of terms such as ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘recyclable’ and on what basis such claims are made. [read post]
4 Dec 2021, 6:38 am by admin
Unlike the advertising of tobacco and vaping products, there exists relatively little guidance from Health Canada and other regulators following the enactment of the Cannabis Act to help interpret cannabis laws. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 7:45 pm by Simon Lester
The document includes somewhere between "very little" and "practically no" further committed language on the transatlantic decarbonization dimension of the plan, which remains, as a result, nebulous at best and clear as mud at worst. [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 2:01 am by Neil Wilkof
In particular, the following is noted: (i) Support claims with evidence; (ii) evidence of other registered trade marks is not likely to be overly useful unless it is accompanied by evidence of use in the marketplace; (iii) keep evidence of use within the relevant dates; (iv) ensure that evidence shows use of the mark and not a similar mark/no mark at all; (v) do not include irrelevant evidence (e.g. use on a different product); (vi) keep submissions and evidence of fact… [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 2:57 am by Peter Mahler
The three appraisers agreed that the (undiscounted) FV of the plaintiff’s membership interest was a little under $5 million. [read post]