Search for: "Sell v. Sell"
Results 2521 - 2540
of 23,633
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 May 2019, 6:13 am
Wrongful use of retirement plan participant data was among the claims made by a class of 40,000 participants against the plan sponsor and others in Cassell et al. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 10:55 am
Stewart v. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 3:37 pm
Hart v. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 8:04 am
Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, owner of various federal registrations for HELLS ANGELS and design mark depicting a skull with wings, sues the Alexander McQueen fashion house, Saks and Zappos for selling jewelry, apparel and accessories that infringe and dilute the Hells Angels' marks. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 4:21 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
6 May 2017, 8:15 pm
Samson v. [read post]
8 May 2007, 5:11 am
Abbott Labs. v. [read post]
15 Sep 2008, 7:46 pm
I was reading commentary on last Friday's defense verdict in the Cooper v. [read post]
5 Feb 2014, 2:17 am
On appeal from: [2012] EWHC 1228 (Admin) The defendants sought to disrupt the activity of a shop in Covent Garden which sells products made in an Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 4:18 pm
See Law v. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 10:10 am
Defendant JHS is a UK corporation that sells various products using the SpongeBob marks. [read post]
13 Dec 2008, 8:48 am
A federal judge has told South Carolina to stop making and selling the "I Believe" license plate. [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 7:25 am
Selle aasta esimeses Patendilehes avaldatud uued patenditaotlused. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 3:00 am
Mandelbaum Orthotic & Prosthetic Services, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 5:10 am
Brumfield did not sell or offer for sale anything embodying the invention. [read post]
10 Mar 2006, 9:34 pm
In Rumsfeld v. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 2:04 pm
PLC v. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 9:26 am
May 30, 2018) Related posts: Amazon Doesn’t “Sell” Its Marketplace Goods–Milo & Gabby v. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 11:58 am
First, the court distinguishes Fox v. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 7:50 am
Omega appealed and the 9th Circuit affirmed this time, because the Supreme Court held in 2013 in Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons that the first sale doctrine applies to goods manufactured abroad.First sale doctrine§109(a) of the Copyright Act authorises the owner of a lawfully made copy of a protected work to sell or dispose of that copy without having to ask permission of the copyright owner. [read post]
