Search for: "Shoe Show, Inc." Results 221 - 240 of 518
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jul 2015, 1:03 pm
The first of these is GO Outdoors Ltd v Skechers USA Inc II [2015] EWHC 1405 (Ch), a 19 May decision of Mrs Justice Rose, sitting in the Chancery Division, England and Wales, on an appeal from a decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 1:12 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  This wasn’t inconsistent with Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 10:49 pm by Tessa Shepperson
Ben Reeve Lewis is back … Thanks to Tessa for ably filling my newsround shoes last week. [read post]
19 May 2015, 6:32 am by Joy Waltemath
Explaining that the KCRA was modeled after federal law, and state courts have interpreted the Kentucky law consistently with the ADA, the court held that the employee could not establish a physiological cause for her morbid obesity (Wagner’s Pharmacy Inc v. [read post]
5 May 2015, 3:26 pm by Brian E. Barreira
What the Cohen holding means is that, for trust interpretation purposes, the MassHealth program stands in the same shoes as a creditor of the settlor. [read post]
5 May 2015, 3:26 pm by Brian E. Barreira
What the Cohen holding means is that, for trust interpretation purposes, the MassHealth program stands in the same shoes as a creditor of the settlor. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 8:57 am by WIMS
McDonald's Announces Global Commitment on Deforestation <> Aldi eliminates hazardous chemicals from textile production - Hamburg, 31 March 2015 – Aldi, one of the top ten discounters worldwide, has today pledged to ban all hazardous chemicals from their textile and shoe production by 2020. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 7:47 am by Bill Marler
Investigations revealed that Foodmaker, Inc., Jack in the Box’s parent company, had been warned about undercooking patties by health departments, but decided to continue the two-minute cook time for business reasons, and to maintain a better texture. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Finding that the statutory language was “subject to at least two different interpretations,” that court went on to apply the familiar rule of administrative law from the case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 11:58 am by Marie-Andree Weiss
However, the district court found that the polka dots design was sufficiently original to be protected by copyright, relying on PrinceGroup, Inc. v. [read post]