Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 3461 - 3480
of 19,483
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jan 2021, 6:33 am
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the latest petition in Henry Schein, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2024, 7:16 am
” Jones v. [read post]
8 Nov 2013, 2:00 pm
Remanded.Read more: Top state court says woman who donated egg to female partner has parental rightsState v. [read post]
31 Oct 2024, 9:00 pm
States have broad leeway to determine how and when ballots, marked by Election Day, are returned (and there is significant variation in state practices). [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 6:25 am
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. [read post]
16 Nov 2016, 1:33 pm
| Friday Fantasies | Meet the Trade Mark Judges (Part One) | HHJ Hacon amplifies the law on EU trade mark jurisdiction: AMS-Neve v Heritage Audio | Launch of IP Pro Bono scheme | Lundbeck v European Commission - a rotten decision or effective competition law enforcement? [read post]
8 May 2017, 10:17 am
GuestKats and InternKat I BREAKING: Birss J hands down first FRAND decision in Unwired Planet v Huawei I Retromark: a year in trade marks I Can a public domain artwork be registered as a trade mark or would that be contrary to public policy and morality? [read post]
3 Jan 2023, 4:37 am
Cubatabaco v. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 7:00 am
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, a forum-selection case, and United States v. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 5:34 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 5:11 pm
One Wholesaler v. [read post]
15 Jun 2018, 4:30 am
Mark Walsh has a “view” from the courtroom for this blog. [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 11:20 am
What happened The case, Blackhorse v. [read post]
17 May 2013, 10:56 am
Redpath, and Owen Mark Williams Case number: 10-cv-03995 (United States District Court for the District of Minnesota)Case filed: September 21, 2010Qualifying Judgment/Order: April 15, 2013 5/17/2013 8/15/2013 2013-40 SEC v. [read post]
1 Jul 2022, 9:02 pm
Since the charge given by the Supreme Court adequately conveyed the "sum and substance of the applicable law," there is no basis for reversal (Hayes v Estee Lauder Cos., Inc., 34 AD3d at 737 [internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
1 Jul 2022, 9:02 pm
Since the charge given by the Supreme Court adequately conveyed the "sum and substance of the applicable law," there is no basis for reversal (Hayes v Estee Lauder Cos., Inc., 34 AD3d at 737 [internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
27 Mar 2022, 6:51 pm
This has been the case regardless of what formal test applies, the proportionality test outside the United States, which expressly calls for judges to weigh the relative costs and benefits of a restriction, or the Employment Division v. [read post]
14 Jul 2024, 2:45 pm
Marks, 876 F.3d at 422. [read post]
28 Jun 2024, 10:35 pm
The Court also rejected the EUIPO’s argument that, if Indo’s opposition were successful, the opposed mark could be converted into national applications in all (remaining) EU Member States. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 4:05 pm
In State v. [read post]
