Search for: "State v. Good Bear"
Results 2861 - 2880
of 5,194
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jul 2014, 10:39 pm
Many states still completely outlaw it. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 2:00 pm
Judge Hacon allowed the claim.* First, he said, you have to hypothesise the average consumer considering a battery charger bearing the sign JUMPSTAR, giving it the degree of attention appropriate to such goods. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 4:49 am
As the Court recently held in People v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 6:42 am
” That said, the after-acquired evidence does have some bearing on FEHA claims. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 11:00 am
Read as actually contained in two opinions in Burwell v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 9:22 am
Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2014, 8:45 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 2:01 pm
You can read that case, Fulgham v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 11:17 am
Here, though, is what the majority said in Hill v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 8:22 am
’” FDA v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 6:31 am
” Wyoming v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 7:18 am
Is the latest version as good as – or better than – that of Delaware or Nevada? [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 3:50 am
But the next guy who gets offered the v-deal may not be in the same position, and the trade-off may not be so benign. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm
” Best v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 4:29 am
Finally, JURIST’s Jaclyn Belczyk covers Thursday’s decision in United States v. [read post]
22 Jun 2014, 5:34 am
Under common law a mark is protectable through its use, or as was stated by Justice Pitney in United Drug Co v Theodore Rectans Co: "...the right to a particular mark grows out of its use, not its mere adoption; its function is simply to designate the goods as the product of a particular trader and to protect his good will against the sale of another's product as his". [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 6:06 pm
The website stated that the suffix “ov” is common to Russian surnames and evokes the Russian language. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 10:00 am
Of perhaps greatest economic consequence, the government will no longer seize imported goods bearing any of the cancelled marks, since only goods bearing registered trademarks are subject to forfeiture. 19 U.S.C. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 8:49 am
’” In examining the issue, the court specifically stated that “[t]he case of Finger v. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 8:11 am
In Commonwealth v. [read post]
