Search for: "People v. Conte" Results 201 - 220 of 259
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Dec 2012, 1:57 pm by Bexis
  In the absence of proof that real people were exposed to products that were unsafe or ineffective (instead of just improperly promoted), there is simply no injury, and thus no standing, for any sort of claim by a TPP or other beneficiary for purely economic loss. [read post]
13 Apr 2018, 2:45 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Tabari: 9th Circuit talks about what people expect when they see TMs in domain names. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 5:20 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Static Control didn’t have antitrust standing federally, per 6th Cir.Rebecca Tushnet - Georgetown University Law Center, representing amicus curiae, Law ProfessorsWhy should people who are primarily interested in TM care? [read post]
11 Oct 2014, 12:09 pm by Stephen Bilkis
In respect to the other phases of the Appellate Division's power to lessen or suspend the sentence in this case, an affirmative answer is found, among others, in People v. [read post]
23 Nov 2014, 12:00 am by Illinois BLJ
  Not even people outside of the business sector would be safe from the Act. [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 2:56 pm by Stephen Bilkis
New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., and People v. [read post]
12 Apr 2019, 2:50 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Session 2,  Cont’d Mark Lemley: point of TM law from producer perspective is product differentiation. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 4:12 am
Cont’l Motors, Inc., No. 1110786, 2013 WL 3481949, at *3 (Ala. 2013). [43]. [read post]