Search for: "F&S Distributors, Inc."
Results 301 - 320
of 553
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Aug 2016, 1:02 pm
America Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 983-84 (10th Cir. 2000), held that § 230 preempted plaintiff’s request for “injunctive relief” as well as for damages. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 3:20 pm
The Third Circuit in LePage's, Inc. v. 3M, 324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 953 (2004), upheld a verdict and judgment in a case involving discounts and rebates to customers that bought 3M products other than tape. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 7:53 am
Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 618 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2010), which upheld a false designation of origin claim even though the defendant never sold any of the plaintiff’s products as if they were produced by the defendant. [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 4:20 am
The audit uncovered weaknesses in the Department’s efforts to appropriately collect taxes and suggested recommendations for how the Department could improve oversight of distributors and tax collection processes. [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 4:20 am
The audit uncovered weaknesses in the Department’s efforts to appropriately collect taxes and suggested recommendations for how the Department could improve oversight of distributors and tax collection processes. [read post]
23 Jun 2009, 2:02 am
Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1285 (Fed. [read post]
14 May 2008, 5:20 am
Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003), cited in support of the defense claim of a conflict between national drug wholesalers and downstream retail distributors such that the challenged activity may have been financially beneficial to the national wholesalers, explaining at page 14 that “the controlling question is whether the class members suffered an overcharge: if an overcharge occurred, all class members are entitled to recover, whether… [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 2:06 pm
Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 2:40 am
The inclusion of the word LITTLE in Respondent's mark was not enough to distinguish it from Petitioner's mark. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 4:05 pm
Hetronic International, Inc., Hetronic, a manufacturer of radio remote controls for heavy duty construction equipment, sued its former distributor Abitron for trademark infringement as Abitron continued to use the Hetronic trademark to market and sell Abitron’s own remote controls after the distribution agreement was terminated. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 4:05 pm
Hetronic International, Inc., Hetronic, a manufacturer of radio remote controls for heavy duty construction equipment, sued its former distributor Abitron for trademark infringement as Abitron continued to use the Hetronic trademark to market and sell Abitron’s own remote controls after the distribution agreement was terminated. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 7:40 am
Medtronic, Inc., 231 F.3d 216, 236 (6th Cir. 2000)), and (2) plaintiff generally asserted that Petco violated the FDCA, but never exactly said how. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 5:40 am
John Powell Chevrolet, Inc., 765 F. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 6:24 pm
Resellers frequently list items using another's trademark without authorization, i.e. selling genuine Windows software without being an authorized distributor/retailer. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 6:37 am
Certex USA, Inc., No. 10-20083 (5th Cir., September 15, 2010), Noble Drilling Services (Noble) entered an agreement to purchase wire mooring rope from Bridon International, Ltd. and Bridon-American Corporation (Bridon) through Bridon’s distributor Certex USA, Inc. [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 1:16 pm
Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008). [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 12:59 pm
This afternoon’s post takes a look at some noteworthy events unfolding around the globe: MetLife, Inc. [read post]
20 Sep 2021, 10:05 am
N.V.E., Inc., 694 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2012), was not to the contrary. [read post]
16 Jun 2016, 6:28 am
Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009). [read post]
29 Jul 2020, 4:34 am
"Applying the CAFC's Converse factors, the Board found that the widespread use of substantially similar cut-outs undercut MK's claim of 'substantially exclusive"use as required under Section 2(f). [read post]
