Search for: "Sales, C. v. Sales, S."
Results 201 - 220
of 6,053
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Oct 2023, 5:11 am
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(c); Daniel J. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 3:40 pm
Grünenthal’s arguments are the usual, i.e. that it would suffer irreparable damage if Teva’s product is included in the Taxe, resulting in price erosion and loss of sales. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 9:23 am
It's based on my work with the Georgia Association of Club Executives v. [read post]
16 Oct 2023, 4:24 am
Recovery Corp. v Bonderman, 31 NY3d 30, 39 [2018]). [read post]
13 Oct 2023, 9:41 pm
Evid. 103(c). [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 9:25 am
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals has explained the relationship between the two subsections as follows: The more that a claimed cost satisfies the business necessity requirement in subsection (c), the more the contractor’s burden to satisfy the benefit requirement in subsection (b) is reduced. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 6:32 am
See C&DI 120.26.[2] Annual Disclosures. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 6:32 am
See C&DI 120.26.[2] Annual Disclosures. [read post]
6 Oct 2023, 12:57 pm
Published Decisions Gaysek v. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 7:50 am
NRDC v. [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 9:01 pm
July 3, 2023, settled) SEC v. [read post]
29 Sep 2023, 10:04 am
” Butler v. [read post]
27 Sep 2023, 6:22 am
Office Depot, LLC, September 25, 2023, Wilson, C.).Sales lift. [read post]
26 Sep 2023, 11:00 am
Amazon, 2023 FC 1156 and Watson v. [read post]
25 Sep 2023, 9:01 pm
§ 2(c)(2)(D)(ii)(III)(aa) (exempting contracts of sale that result in actual delivery within 28 days from the definition of retail commodity transaction); see also Final Interpretive Guidance, Retail Commodity Transactions Involving Certain Digital Assets, 85 FR 37734, 37737–38 (June 24, 2020). 6 Id. [read post]
25 Sep 2023, 2:00 pm
While the CJEU’s case law (Ferrari SpA v DU (C-720/18) EU:C:2020:854 and Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (C-40/01) EU:C: 2003:145) suggest that using the trade mark for spare parts might be considered genuine use for the complete product, the evidence submitted by Ferrari did not sufficiently demonstrate genuine use of the trade mark for relevant spare parts that could be seen as equivalent to an automobile.CommentThe Board’s… [read post]
25 Sep 2023, 9:00 am
In effect, the Bureau intends to significantly curtail the sale of certain personal data for marketing purposes. [read post]
23 Sep 2023, 11:26 am
Woolf v. [read post]
23 Sep 2023, 3:43 am
Background The avid IPKat reader may recall that late last year, the IPKat reported on a somewhat surprising decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU), which held, disagreeing with the Advocate General’s opinion, that Amazon could in fact be directly liable for trademark infringement in respect of counterfeit shoes which were being offered for sale on its website by third party retailers (Louboutin v Amazon C-148/21 and… [read post]
21 Sep 2023, 7:20 am
Their discussion of Florida’s important Porter decision [ Tampa Maid Seafood Products v. [read post]
