Search for: "M & M Label Company, Inc."
Results 221 - 240
of 572
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2015, 12:11 pm
As we mentioned in our prior post, the Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 1:12 pm
This wasn’t inconsistent with Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. [read post]
21 May 2015, 9:00 am
<> House Hearing On Issues Facing Civilian and Postal Service Vehicle Fleet Procurement - Witness Testimony and webcast <> FEMP Seeking Public Comment on Draft M&V Guidelines - The measurement and verification (M&V) document provides guidelines for measuring and verifying energy, water, and cost savings associated with federal energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs). … [read post]
19 May 2015, 8:45 am
But see United We Stand Am., Inc. v. [read post]
8 May 2015, 8:15 am
PATRICIA M. [read post]
4 May 2015, 4:47 am
Smaller companies might not be able to compete, thus leading to reduced competition. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 4:00 am
The Federal Court decision in Red Label Vacations Inc v 411 Travel Buys Limited 2015 FC 19 has focussed on a detailed considerations by a Canadian court of the issues of copyright and trademark infringement via the use of metatags. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 2:16 am
See Vignerons de la Méditerranée sues Westchester County Importer Pasternak. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 10:03 pm
— a Nestlé competitor — to stop making its M&M’s with artificial colors because, they claim, the dyes “can trigger hyperactivity in sensitive children. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 3:33 pm
This must be negotiated with the publishers and labels directly. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 1:32 pm
” [A] “sparkle” is a link displayed alongside search results for an M–Edge product that directs a user to another company’s related product. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 6:38 am
Lens.com, Inc., 722 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2013) and Network Automation, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 1:15 am
* Warner-Lambert v Actavis Mark 2, still at first instance: more on Swiss claims, Skinny Labels, and no StrikeoutDarren covers another Arnoldian decision in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWHC 223 (Pat). [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 9:43 am
Turning to the issue of likelihood of consumer confusion, the Ninth Circuit stated that it had to use the factors from AMF, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:20 am
* Dutch diverge with English as Novartis prevails on Zoledronic Acid in NetherlandsKatfriend Rutger M. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 4:03 am
She has now learned that the EPO has responded in the form of an email sent by Mr Guillaume Minnoye, Vice-President of Directorate General 1, which Merpel leaks here in all its majestic unbelievability.* No pain for Actavis: Warner-Lambert fail to stop launch of generic pregabalinSecond medical use claims, skinny labels, and public policy issues around healthcare are the topics addressed in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWHC 72… [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 10:00 pm
Federal Circuit Reduces Award for Defendants Based on Costs of Digital Copies: In Phillip M. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 6:30 am
And once again, Pom Wonderful’s legal tenacity seems to have been justified.In the case before the 9th Circuit, Pom Wonderful, the largest maker in the United States of 100% pomegranate juice and the owner of the POM trade mark, filed suit for infringement and requested that the defendant be preliminarily enjoined from selling a pomegranate-flavoured energy drink labelled "pŏm". [read post]
16 Dec 2014, 9:00 pm
Robert M. [read post]
14 Dec 2014, 11:25 am
“For children’s sleepwear, there are labels on there. [read post]
