Search for: "Does 1-43"
Results 221 - 240
of 4,441
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Sep 2014, 8:40 am
New York does not recognize a post-mortem right of publicity. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 9:45 pm
CR 2-43(a), Price Adjustments[1] Q. [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 3:30 am
Does the insurer get to deny coverage based on the insured’s lack of performance under such circumstances? [read post]
14 May 2013, 9:48 am
In contrast to equitable subordination, recharacterization does not usually require a finding of inequitable conduct. [read post]
11 Sep 2023, 9:01 am
However, §43(a)(1)(A) was available, and a reasonable jury could find that the marks were inherently distinctive, not merely personal names. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
The document does not explicitly indicate how this substance was produced or which ingredients it contains. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 9:07 am
by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit is set to consider the use of terms like “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive” in commercial advertising can be actionable under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act when their use is not entirely accurate. [read post]
17 Feb 2020, 11:15 am
Press blog post: "What does Open Access mean to me: Journal of Humanitarian Affairs. [read post]
23 Mar 2022, 8:22 am
[Is it about “commercial activities,” the oft-forgotten phrase in §43(a)(1)(B)?] [read post]
6 Dec 2008, 6:31 am
These three passages indicate the following authority, respectively: Indiana Trial Rule 37(B) (Discovery Sanctions),6 Indiana Code Section 34-52-1-1(b) (Exception to General Costs Recovery Rule),7 and Indiana Code Section 33-43-1-8 (Deceit or Collusion by an Attorney).I do not recall having seen IC 33-43-1-8 and I hope never to see it:IC 33-43-1-8Deceit or collusion of attorney; penalty Sec. 8. [read post]
19 Mar 2024, 2:10 pm
Based on what we know, what does it say about political engagement? [read post]
19 Mar 2024, 2:10 pm
Based on what we know, what does it say about political engagement? [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 7:34 am
Yes it does, but more on the history of Listeria in cheese below. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 6:48 pm
H.R. 683, which upon enactment became the TDRA, states: “Section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1125) is amended — (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following…” which goes on to recite the text of the TDRA. [read post]
22 Nov 2017, 11:35 am
So it may be with the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 43-page, published, 2-1 majority decision, accompanied by a 4-page dissent, filed on November 16, 2017, after remand from the California Supreme Court in Cleveland National Forest Foundation, et al. v. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 1:14 pm
For starters, at the present time, federal trademark law does not yet protect any marks for cannabis products under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), and further cannabis is still classified as a schedule 1 drug. [read post]
21 Aug 2013, 5:21 am
Col. 2, ll. 41-43. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 1:52 pm
Caplan’s lecture (at 43:46) where he makes that statement. [read post]
20 Jul 2022, 9:30 am
"Does Lim Truly Have 'Nothing to Say' about the Commonwealth’s Regional Processing Arrangements? [read post]
14 Feb 2019, 2:45 pm
(The Conversation, 12 Feb. 2019) [text]Morrison Government Defeated on Medical Bill, Despite Constitution Play (The Conversation, 12 Feb. 2019) [text]"'Vote for humanity': Australian Parliament Begins Dismantling Hard-line Offshore Policy for Asylum Seekers," Washington Post, 2 Feb. 2019 [text]"Cutting Through the Claims: The Refugee Medical Debate, Explained," Sydney Morning Herald, 14 Feb. 2019 [text]Grattan on Friday: What Does “Reopening”… [read post]
