Search for: "In Re: Mark M."
Results 2681 - 2700
of 7,664
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 May 2016, 7:43 am
Final point: expanding beyond intention—I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that where adjudication occurred they’ve interpreted the DMCA more narrowly for garage door openers and printers [unless you’re in the 9th Cir.]. [read post]
18 May 2016, 7:41 am
On the night of May 7, 2013, David Sal Silva fell asleep in front of a home in east Bakersfield, across from Kern Medical Center. [read post]
18 May 2016, 6:00 am
But if your as big as Beyoncé, I’d say it shouldn’t be too difficult to prove you’re a famous mark and enjoy some extra protections. [read post]
18 May 2016, 3:14 am
Cir. 2013) (area codes limited in number).Examining Attorney Roselle M. [read post]
17 May 2016, 6:00 am
In re Mavety Media, 33 F.3d 1371-72, 31 USPQ2d 1925-26 (Fed. [read post]
16 May 2016, 8:58 am
I'm honored, I'm pleased, I've had a great time tonight, and I'm thrilled to be here. [read post]
11 May 2016, 7:34 pm
No, I get it--we're looking for opposites here to spark the comedy). [read post]
11 May 2016, 3:53 pm
"You're just playing the race card! [read post]
11 May 2016, 9:26 am
They’re charged with violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and related rules. [read post]
10 May 2016, 1:00 pm
They're humbled by the aspects of their work that compels them to daily make god-like decisions on the fate of other people. [read post]
6 May 2016, 10:50 am
They’re all corrupt. [read post]
3 May 2016, 12:09 am
Consequently, physical limitations that still exist beyond the one-year mark are more probably than not permanent. [read post]
2 May 2016, 2:30 pm
Charlesworth: 512 is approaching the 20-year-mark, and not merely of interest to © nerds or particular industries. [read post]
2 May 2016, 4:00 am
Rev. 129 (2015)).Mark L. [read post]
1 May 2016, 9:09 am
No, I’m a mind traveler. [read post]
1 May 2016, 7:32 am
RT: Three things: (1) In re Tam: that is dependent on Reed and is a commercial speech case despite claims to the contrary; to see that it is, look at why the majority says it’s ok to uphold the bars against deceptive and confusing marks while striking down disparagement: b/c Central Hudson says misleading commercial speech can be banned entirely. [read post]
1 May 2016, 5:43 am
As long-time (or casual) readers of SJ may already be aware, I’m not a big fan of feelings. [read post]
30 Apr 2016, 2:00 pm
I know I’m a bit of a contrarian. [read post]
30 Apr 2016, 12:10 pm
Tamara Piety: Suggestions re: tone. [read post]
30 Apr 2016, 7:37 am
Heather M. [read post]
