Search for: "State v. P. B."
Results 3541 - 3560
of 6,781
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jan 2009, 1:42 pm
” The court, however, rapidly rejected this argument, noting that the Ninth Circuit in United States v. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 5:01 pm
People v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 5:00 am
Ford 134,000 150,000 0 102 284,102 James P. [read post]
21 Dec 2007, 6:00 am
Case Name: Crapo v. [read post]
17 Dec 2006, 2:19 pm
Dhooge, Lohengrin Revealed: The Implications of Sosa v. [read post]
21 Dec 2007, 6:00 am
Case Name: Crapo v. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 11:08 pm
REV. 1359; Stephen P. [read post]
14 Oct 2009, 9:31 am
Pressler, supra, Appendix IX-B at p. 2411. [read post]
9 Apr 2011, 9:40 pm
While this might not usually be a matter of surprise in the State Department report, the fact that the European Court of Human Rights handed down its important decision in A, B & C v Ireland in December makes it a strange omission. [read post]
25 Jan 2021, 4:00 am
The Article 7(1)(b) assessment therefore takes place firstly by reference to the goods or services to which it is applied, and secondly, according to the relevant public’s perception (Audi v OHIM, Case C‑398/08 P). [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 1:03 pm
However, he agreed with the challenge based on the marks' inherent distinctiveness under s 3(1)(b), holding that they failed to meet the criteria in Case C-398/08 P Audi AG v OHIM [the 'Vorsprung durch Technik' case, noted by the IPKat here] in that they lacked originality, did not require any interpretation by the relevant public and were not indicative of a particular undertaking. [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 10:25 am
Yesterday, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) issued its decision in Case C-432/18, Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena v Balema GmbH [here]. [read post]
31 May 2010, 6:10 pm
The court in United States v. [read post]
27 Sep 2009, 6:35 pm
Nash ((1929-1932) 16 T.C. 523.) where he said at p. 530: It is said again: “Is the State coming forward to take a share of unlawful gains? [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
Last May, in Montz v. [read post]
5 Apr 2022, 10:45 am
§ 10-1-767(b). [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 7:08 am
In Béland , supra , McIntyre J., speaking about the inadmissibility of a polygraph test, cited at p. 415 Davie v. [read post]
24 Dec 2022, 8:10 am
In Matter of Karen P. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 3:25 pm
Surdonja (1999) 31 HLR 686 and R v Hillingdon LBC ex p. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 3:25 pm
Surdonja (1999) 31 HLR 686 and R v Hillingdon LBC ex p. [read post]
