Search for: "Marks v. State" Results 2461 - 2480 of 19,799
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Jul 2018, 9:32 am by luiza
This decision comes on the heels of a similar Sixth Circuit decision in United States v. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 5:15 am by Guest Blogger
The challenges, however, hit their own high water mark when the Supreme Court granted review in King v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 4:00 am by Martin Kratz
Canada’s Federal Court addressed this issue in H-D U.S.A., LLC v. [read post]
26 May 2011, 9:00 am by McNabb Associates, P.C.
The fabrication of counterfeit money, whether coin or paper, counterfeit titles or coupons of public debt, bank notes, or other instruments of public credit; of counterfeit seals, stamps, dies, and marks of State or public administration, and the utterance, circulation, or fraudulent use of any of the above mentioned objects. 14. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 2:36 pm by Mark Walsh
The case was brought by Mark Janus, a child-support specialist for the state of Illinois who does not belong to the union and objects to paying an agency fee for collective bargaining activities. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 11:55 am by Nikki Siesel
The Board goes on to state another common rule: the first term in a mark is more likely to be remembered by the average consumer. [read post]
14 Jan 2022, 7:43 am by Tian Lu
To support that, SLC cited the once high-profile J’adore Dior trade mark case in China (IPKat post here) in which the three-dimensional mark at issue, also a perfume bottle, was not granted trade mark registration at that time. [read post]
24 Jun 2020, 1:01 pm by Unknown
United States (Endangered Species Act; Water Rights)Cherokee Nation v. [read post]
7 Mar 2007, 5:15 am
This week marks the 150th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 4:02 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” “”A release is a contract, and its construction is governed by contract law” (Schiller v Guthrie, 102 AD3d 852, 853 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cardinal Holdings, Ltd. v Indotronix Intl. [read post]