Search for: "Reed v. Reed" Results 2561 - 2580 of 3,242
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jul 2014, 12:15 pm
            This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog. [read post]
21 Nov 2014, 2:46 am
While the "essential function" of the trade mark in Europe is "to guarantee the identity of origin of the marked goods or services to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the goods or services from others which have another origin" (Case C-206/01 Arsenal v Reed)the protection is given not to the consumer but to the trade mark owner as guarantor of the identity of the origin of the marked goods. [read post]
5 Jan 2016, 11:28 am
 And speaking of wins . . . . let’s talk about Hernandez v. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 7:44 am
            This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog only. [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 1:50 am by CMS
(Fourth issue) The Supreme Court’s judgment  Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Kitchin, with whom Lord Hodge agreed, gave the majority judgment, with Lord Carnwath dissenting in part. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 12:14 pm
  Bexis, however, (and thus Reed Smith) being part of the defense team in Stengel, cannot comment substantively on the petition. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 11:30 am
  Our guest blogger today is Henry Pietrkowski, a partner in Reed Smith's Chicago office. [read post]
30 Jan 2011, 8:33 am by John Hochfelder
Generally, pain and suffering awards in brain damage cases that are sustained in excess of $1,000,000 involve much longer periods of time, such as: Reed v. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 4:35 pm by Hank Fasthoff
  It provides a defense to an infringement claim when the alleged similarities are merely the use of (i) common scenes or themes, see Reed-Union Corp. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 10:40 pm by Kelly
(IPBiz) Australia FCA: No copyright in newspaper headlines: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 9:47 pm by Mike
June 23, 2010) (rejecting defendant’s argument that amount in controversy was satisfied because the plaintiff was seeking a modification of a $448,000 loan and an injunction to enjoin any foreclosure sale of the property); see also Reed v. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 9:21 am
Wilner served as counsel of record to Guantanamo detainees in Rasul v. [read post]