Search for: "E B C I Inc" Results 261 - 280 of 1,926
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jul 2014, 11:28 am
The complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, lists two counts: • Count I: Infringement of U.S. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 3:01 am
"The IPKat suspects, knowing the parties in question, that this might be yet another round in the Battle of the Bunnies, the chocolate variety at any rate.Moving with great rapidity, on Thursday 17 March the Court is holding its hearing in Case C-236/08, Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier, a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 3 June 2008. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 10:04 pm by John L. Welch
Applying the six non-exhaustive dilution factors of Section 43(c)(2)(B), the Board concluded that “an association exists between the parties’ marks that would impair the distinctiveness of opposer’s famous mark. [read post]
23 Dec 2018, 7:53 am by Wolfgang Demino
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201(b)(2) and 201(c)(2), the Court takes judicial notice of the offered documents.[2]C. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 4:28 am
’ (California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6(b)(3)). [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 2:59 am by gmlevine
Available-Domain-Names.com, d/b/a Intellectual-Assets.com, Inc., D2000-0120 (WIPO April 13, 2000) and EAuto, L.L.C. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 8:25 am by INFORRM
(a)  Cooke & anr v MGN & anr (b)  OPO v MLA & anr (c)  Vidal-Hall v Google Inc (d)  PNM v Times Newspapers (16) Who was incorrectly described as a Deputy High Court judge in a judgment handed down this year? [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
(a)  Cooke & anr v MGN & anr (b)  OPO v MLA & anr (c)  Vidal-Hall v Google Inc (d)  PNM v Times Newspapers (16) Who was incorrectly described as a Deputy High Court judge in a judgment handed down this year? [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 4:08 am by Laura Sandwell, Matrix Chambers
The Supreme Court is to determine the correct interpretation of “particular disadvantage” in regards to Regulation 3(1)(b)(i) of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 in light of the respective difficulty the appellant would have obtaining a law degree at 61 compared with younger colleagues. [read post]