Search for: "In Re Application of Smith"
Results 241 - 260
of 2,110
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Dec 2013, 10:01 am
The FISC court accepted the Smith precedent in a decision that has been redacted and published at their website, In Re An Application of the [FBI] for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things from [Redacted], BR13-109 at 6-9, (FISC, Aug. 29, 2013). [read post]
1 Apr 2008, 1:48 pm
David Smith: Okay, for our last topic we can touch on, and we're not going to hit everything obviously, let's just talk briefly about administration bonds. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 11:03 am
MCL 777.31” The Court again considered the applications in People v Corrin and People v Miller, which were held in abeyance pending the decision in People v Smith, which was decided this past December. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 2:44 pm
Caremark started out as a logical consequence of Smith v. [read post]
23 Nov 2007, 4:56 am
Thus, RES is also a citizen of Missouri. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 2:09 pm
The DSA repeats and re-enacts the principle first set out in Article 15 of the eCommerce Directive: the EU prohibition on Member States imposing general monitoring obligations on conduits, caches and hosts. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 4:50 am
Yoder, but merely returns the law to the state as it existed prior to Smith. . . . [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 3:40 am
It substantively re-enacts the mandatory data retention provisions of the 2009 Data Retention Regulations. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 12:06 pm
In re Smith, Case No. [read post]
23 Jul 2022, 12:45 am
Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was refused in March 2022 on the grounds that the application did not raise an arguable point of law. [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 5:27 pm
If you're reading this now, you should really have a beer in your hand. [read post]
7 Jan 2009, 1:28 pm
You're listening to Episode 144 on Tuesday, January 6th, 2009. [read post]
12 Sep 2016, 6:21 am
" Applicant further asserted that the scope of protection to be accorded a descriptive mark is limited to substantially identical marks for substantially identical goods, but the Board disavowed that theory in In re Smith & Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (TTAB 1991), holding that while a mark on the Supplemental Register may be weaker and of less ability to preclude registration of a similar mark, there is no categorical rule like that posited by… [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 6:32 am
“They’re cute. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 7:48 am
In Smith v. [read post]
14 Sep 2014, 9:45 am
In re Estate of Powell, 2014 IL 115997 (June 19, 2014). [read post]
17 Jun 2007, 7:15 am
" Loring submitted a declaration on behalf of FTCR/PubPat in the re-exam of the Thomson / WARF patents. [read post]
23 Apr 2024, 2:46 pm
ShareMonday’s argument in Smith v. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 9:00 am
You’re rarely at the medi-spa and you’re able to oversee nurses who do all the heavy clinical lifting. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 12:52 pm
Maybe some of these errors are harmless (or maybe not), but saying that they're okay is just wrong. [read post]
