Search for: "Sales, C. v. Sales, S."
Results 261 - 280
of 6,053
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Aug 2018, 4:28 am
Grecia v. [read post]
26 Mar 2008, 11:13 am
Here, the only evidence that the defendant transported drugs for sale from one county to another noncontiguous county was the defendant's statement. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 5:56 pm
Facts of the Case In Howard v. [read post]
8 Feb 2018, 8:56 pm
Shop N Save operated as a “limited food sales establishment” in a location zoned as C-1, a neighborhood retail commercial district. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 10:45 am
[Post by Venkat Balasubramani, with comments from Eric] Capitol Records, LLC v. [read post]
30 Nov 2016, 4:00 am
Royal Bank of Canada v. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 4:18 am
Judge Leinenweber denied defendant’s Rule 11 motion in this trademark and copyright dispute regarding alleged sale of unauthorized plush toys and backpacks at anime conventions. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 5:00 am
S. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 1:13 pm
" Years later the Supreme Court adopted this misreading, in United States v. [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 9:27 am
28/04 Tod’s and Tod’s France [2005] ECR I-5781, paragraph 19; and Case C-147/03 Commission v Austria [2005] ECR I-5969, paragraph 41). [read post]
10 Aug 2008, 2:08 pm
Defendant's vehicle was contraband for forfeiture at the time of his arrest because of a prior drug sale from the car. [read post]
16 Feb 2018, 12:00 am
In SEC v. [read post]
30 May 2017, 9:31 pm
In Vernor v. [read post]
30 Aug 2020, 10:11 am
V. [read post]
30 Oct 2019, 3:43 am
Varex Imaging Corp. v. [read post]
30 Oct 2019, 3:43 am
Varex Imaging Corp. v. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 7:16 pm
Notable examples include McGee v. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 7:41 am
State v. [read post]
30 Oct 2009, 3:56 am
Montano-Perez v. [read post]
23 Sep 2023, 3:43 am
Background The avid IPKat reader may recall that late last year, the IPKat reported on a somewhat surprising decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU), which held, disagreeing with the Advocate General’s opinion, that Amazon could in fact be directly liable for trademark infringement in respect of counterfeit shoes which were being offered for sale on its website by third party retailers (Louboutin v Amazon C-148/21 and… [read post]
