Search for: "He v. Holder"
Results 3041 - 3060
of 5,732
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Aug 2009, 1:31 pm
Ruling in M.H. v. [read post]
27 Nov 2011, 1:38 am
[See also Saroj Kumar Poddar v. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 10:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 7:42 am
And while there are significant exceptions (most notably, Shelby County v. [read post]
5 Mar 2017, 2:30 pm
Of course he can. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 8:29 am
Holder (2013). [read post]
28 Jun 2024, 4:15 am
In National Association of Manufacturers v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 2:04 pm
Dish Network Corp. v. [read post]
19 May 2006, 12:21 pm
In eBay v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 5:44 am
Tony's Taps, LLC v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 3:13 pm
., wrote separately — as he has once before — explaining why he was willing to let the issue develop further in the lower court. [read post]
8 May 2011, 12:51 am
Xavier v. [read post]
20 Sep 2021, 4:27 am
" David Beasley v. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 6:30 am
And, because a lesser degree of similarity is required when a trademark holder’s mark is strong, the commercial strength of the “POM” mark amplifies the significance of the marks’ many similarities See Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay Inc., 506F.3d 1165, 1174 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he fact that the similarity involves the use of a much stronger mark would make that similarity weigh more heavily in the analysis of this factor. [read post]
16 Oct 2019, 1:03 pm
But with the CJEU ruling in Huawei v. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 6:40 am
The case, Tucker v. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 9:17 pm
Bartnicki v. [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 1:12 pm
He underlined (with reference to Laddie J's judgment in Ocular Sciences v Aspect Vision Care [1997] RPC 289) that breach of confidence claims can be used to oppress and harass competitors and ex-employees. [read post]
18 May 2022, 9:01 pm
That was the knock, of course, on the infamous (and thoroughly discredited) Bush v. [read post]
30 Jul 2020, 6:30 am
Holder, which advanced the false assertion that voters of color are no longer subject to systematic efforts to suppress their votes; Citizens United v. [read post]
