Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 2461 - 2480
of 4,554
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Feb 2015, 6:50 pm
Sally Beauty Co., Inc. v. [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]
6 Feb 2015, 8:57 am
Markman v. [read post]
5 Feb 2015, 7:42 am
However, concluding that the court below applied the incorrect legal standard in holding that those reports had been publicly disclosed prior to the time the secretary filed this action, the appeals court reversed. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 1:52 pm
For more than a century, courts have approvedthat standard. [read post]
31 Jan 2015, 8:24 pm
Thankfully, most observers see it as precisely what enabled long-standing aspiration to be admitted into the realm of actual policy and practice. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 8:19 pm
DeLuca v. [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 2:32 am
Courts have been relying specifically on one definition of this standard, published over 150 years ago in the case of Commonwealth v. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 1:15 pm
Only by revisiting this area can the Court help clarify matters, whether this return visit articulates a bright-line rule or provides a benchmark on how courts should apply a less precise standard. [read post]
27 Jan 2015, 3:17 pm
This is the standard rationale used in many campus speech codes aimed at restricting supposed “hate speech. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 12:03 pm
One of the first posts on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® was about Gibson Guitar Corp. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 9:30 am
Aug. 5, 2010) (absent receipts, plaintiffs “failed to show how the potentially millions of putative class members could be ascertained using objective criteria that are administratively feasible”); Charron v. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 9:56 pm
” Pullman-Standard v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 7:07 am
As to the Supreme Court decision in Teva v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 6:37 am
On December 12, 2012, the district court issued a TRO directing Kattler to `produce to Waste Management images of all electronic devices used by Kattler . . . except for the electronic devices used and/or owned by Kattler at Emerald,’ and to `produce to a third-party forensics expert, to be agreed upon by the Parties, images of all electronic devices used by Kattler . . . at Emerald. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 11:56 am
When the standard for obviousness under 35 USC 103 was reviewed in KSR v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 10:08 am
But in the case currently before the Supreme Court, Inclusive Community Partners v. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 12:17 pm
Conception is precisely defined as existing “when adefinite and permanent idea of an operative invention,incl [read post]
14 Jan 2015, 6:49 am
Sergeant Inglett testified that he was not present when Sergeant Langford downloaded the data and that he did not know if Sergeant Langford followed the standard protocol when downloading the data. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 12:16 pm
Bullock v. [read post]
