Search for: "T-UP v. Consumer Protection"
Results 3001 - 3020
of 4,765
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2013, 11:30 am
Yet by the majority’s lights, the very act of creating that requirement in order to “safeguard the consumer,” United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 9:15 am
The statute was recently amended to extend protection so that heirs can enforce this right for up to 70 years after the death of a celebrity. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 7:58 am
Redmond v. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 9:16 am
Ever since County of Riverside v. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 7:45 am
Nor was Masck’s Michigan Consumer Protection Act claim qualitatively different. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 5:14 am
Hart v. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 8:13 am
MummagraphicsDomain Name Privacy Protection Services Not Liable for Failure to Disclose Identity of Alleged Spammer -- Balsam v. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 6:28 am
Kelly-Brown v. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 6:22 am
I don’t think most Realtors, attorneys and consumers realize that these two forms have some critical differences, depending whether you are representing the buyer or seller. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 8:51 am
Protect off-the-shelf use by consumers and businesses by providing them with better legal protection against liability for a product being used off-the-shelf and solely for its intended use. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 6:13 am
That happened recently in Bowman v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 10:50 am
By Eric Goldman Craigslist, Inc. v. 3Taps, Inc., 2013 WL 1819999 (N.D. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 10:40 am
The last case Chief Judge Simon brings up is Caterpillar Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 10:40 am
The last case Chief Judge Simon brings up is Caterpillar Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 10:40 am
The last case Chief Judge Simon brings up is Caterpillar Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 10:40 am
The last case Chief Judge Simon brings up is Caterpillar Inc. v. [read post]
1 Jun 2013, 2:03 pm
It's no less famous than the AT&T one, but less supportive of the EFF's argument. [read post]
31 May 2013, 7:24 am
In Case T‑396/11, ultra air v OHIM - Donaldson Filtration Deutschland, the General Court examined the applicability of the concept of 'abuse of rights', in relation to an application for a declaration of invalidity of a Community trade mark, under Articles 56(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 207/2009. [read post]
26 May 2013, 1:33 pm
Noting that “[v]arious situations have come to the attention of the Departments where a health insurance policy is advertised as fixed indemnity coverage” that do not “Meet the conditions for excepted benefits,” FAQ XI warns, “The Departments plan to work with the States to ensure that health insurance issuers comply with relevant requirements for different types of insurance policies and provide consumers the protections of… [read post]
26 May 2013, 5:30 am
R v Cockell: Every now and again you read decisions… http://t.co/1rO9TX3TR4 -> Tim Cook tells Congress why Apple won’t move $100 billion back home http://t.co/aExyKemUDV -> Cuomo plays fashion police with Khloe Kardashian, warns of copyright violation on T-shirt http://t.co/FvRX43riPd -> IP Osgoode » A Cautionary Kudos: Canada Moves Up on USTR IP Watch List http://t.co/OjJuF1LCSQ -> Intellectual Property Law in Canada »… [read post]
