Search for: "People v. Keys" Results 221 - 240 of 8,992
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Feb 2024, 5:44 pm by Ronald Mann
ShareAs I explain in my preview, the question in Bissonnette v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 9:12 am by Marcel Pemsel
The sign also lacked distinctiveness for goods in classes 14, 16 and 25 that are usually sold as souvenirs, e.g. key rings, watches, jewellery and umbrellas. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 8:57 am by John Mikhail
Much of the evidence I discuss here has been ignored or overlooked in the existing scholarship on Section Three, and most of it does not appear in any of the briefs in Trump v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 3:00 am by Jeff Welty
There are a handful of other cases that reinforce the thrust of Ex Parte United States: People v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 12:36 am by Orin S. Kerr
  In just the last few months, for example, opionions include People by James v. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 7:47 am by Hayleigh Bosher
Coles helpfully places this into the IP law teaching context, emphasising employability of future student generations as a key reason for doing so.The thread of employability-related skills is picked up in more detail in Part VI, where Mandy Haberman promotes “the value of a good story”, especially if the story is told by people who work with IP in the world of business – inventors and entrepreneurs. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 7:00 am by Guest Blogger
Bell as well as the anti-miscegenation statute at issue in Loving v. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 10:48 am by Jeffrey Randa
That the petitioner has the ability and motivation to drive safely and within the law. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 4:07 pm by Jason Kelley
  Cell Phone Location Data Now Requires a Warrant In 2018, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark opinion in Carpenter v. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 11:06 am by Mills & Mills LLP
A key factor in his decision to purchase the home was that it was advertised as being “private and secure”. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 1:42 pm by USPTO
The guidance builds on the existing inventorship framework and the “significant contribution” test from the Federal Circuit’s 1998 Pannu case (Pannu v. [read post]