Search for: "In Re: Daniel et al" Results 221 - 240 of 302
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 May 2011, 2:20 am by Kelly
(TTABlog) TTAB affirms mere descriptiveness refusal of JEWELRYSUPPLY.COM: No tacking and not enough 2(f): In re Jewelry Supply Inc (TTABlog) TTAB affirms refusal of the “Eddie Bauer Guarantee” for failure to function as a service mark: In re Eddie Bauer Licensing Services LLC (TTABlog) TTAB dismisses fraud-based opposition for failure to prove intent to deceive: Daniel Ryan Way and CMDW, Inc. v. [read post]
5 May 2011, 6:57 am by Sarah Lawsky
An 2009 Journal of Legal Education article by Daniel Martin Katz et al. takes a look at the same topic using social network analysis. [read post]
16 Apr 2011, 11:14 am by Paul Maharg
 Second, came Seriously Gamifying Legal Learning, David Johnson & Tanina Rostain, and first the Apps for Justice -- Ron Staudt et al. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 12:53 pm by Christa Culver
MuletaAmicus brief of Professor Daniel B. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 8:45 am by JA Hodnicki
ABSTRACT: I re-examine the inverted-U relationship between competition and innovation (originally modeled and tested by Aghion et al.... [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 8:45 am by JA Hodnicki
ABSTRACT: I re-examine the inverted-U relationship between competition and innovation (originally modeled and tested by Aghion et al.... [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 10:22 pm by legalinformatics
Abstract: This paper explores the responses to Judge Sonia Sotomayor as symptomatic of new or inferential racism and sexism, which appears to include people of color and challenges systems of power, but in actuality serves to re-center whiteness and maleness. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 11:36 am by stevemehta
HUGH CASSIDY et al., Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Respondents, WILLIAM STRAW, Cross-Defendant and Appellant. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 11:36 am by stevemehta
HUGH CASSIDY et al., Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Respondents, WILLIAM STRAW, Cross-Defendant and Appellant. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 9:22 am by Sasha Romanosky
Further, in Davis et al. v Videoegg Inc., 2010 WL 3839312 (C.D.Cal.), the complaint states that “VideoEgg…set online tracking devices which would allow access to, and disclosure of [PII] …without actual notice, awareness, or consent and choice of its users…” Not surprisingly, these actions are more common in recent years, likely driven by the explosive popularity of social media, behavioral advertising and flash cookies. [read post]