Search for: "T-UP v. Consumer Protection"
Results 2301 - 2320
of 4,765
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Oct 2015, 9:49 am
The local prosecutor should be the first choice because of the motivation to protect his/her constituents. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 1:07 pm
And asked that way, it’s clear this challenge opens up numerous cans of worms. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 11:25 am
In the recent decision of E.C. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 10:02 am
If those disclosures aren’t made, the consumer may rescind the transaction for up to three years. [read post]
22 Oct 2015, 2:58 am
This doesn't matter: the function of the trade mark is to provide information for the consumer and thereby save time, by redressing the imbalance of information asymmetry. [read post]
20 Oct 2015, 4:18 pm
Code § 17600 et seq) intended to protect consumers from unwanted charges for ongoing subscription fees, i.e. such as those used by online subscription services. [read post]
20 Oct 2015, 3:24 pm
Sixth Commandment Size up your opponent wisely. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 2:22 pm
Westlaw Fair Use Protects Video Republication To Demonstrate Speaker’s Inconsistent Statements–Caner v. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 2:03 pm
Metaphysics: Toney v. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 11:28 am
To the extent ROP involves false or misleading attempts to hawk a product, this is just consumer protection law. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 8:47 am
RoP broader even though its justification is purely private, as opposed to the ostensible consumer protection objectives of trademark. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 8:19 am
Glassford v. [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 7:21 am
“Now it’s backed up with the force of the court. [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 4:30 am
Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 108 (1998)). [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 2:51 am
The power of a Community collective mark, when contrasted with a protected geographical indication, was put to the test on 2 October, in Cases T-624/13 (noted here), T-625/13, 626/13 and 627/13 The Tea Board v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Delta Lingerie Intervening, when the Eighth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union gave its decision on a series of separate Community trade mark oppositions… [read post]
12 Oct 2015, 10:50 am
This last point brings up an important caveat: it is not even clear if the alternative of having Apple unlock the phone is technologically possible. [read post]
12 Oct 2015, 9:28 am
(Blog post on the district court ruling here: “Android ID Isn’t Personally Identifiable Information Under the Video Privacy Protection Act“.) [read post]
10 Oct 2015, 4:15 pm
The first case up is Campbell-Ewald Co. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2015, 4:40 pm
Co. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2015, 7:37 am
Belfiore v. [read post]
