Search for: "BOX v. STATE" Results 3601 - 3620 of 5,294
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Dec 2020, 2:10 am by Neil Wilkof
In this regard, the Court reasoned as follows:First, jurisprudence suggesting that the mental state of an alleged infringer was irrelevant usually concerned – people who did not know that the goods (containing the infringing sign) that they were selling or otherwise handling were not genuine from the trade mark proprietor rather than those who did not even know that a sign identical or similar to the trade mark existed on the goods at all. [read post]
17 Jul 2013, 3:47 pm
The language used was that specifically suggested by the Court of Appeals in the case of People v. [read post]
11 Jan 2010, 2:32 am by Kevin
[T]he "Crunchberries" depicted on the [box] are round, crunchy, brightly-colored cereal balls, and the [box] clearly states both that the Product contains "sweetened corn & oat cereal" and that the cereal is "enlarged to show texture. [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm by Austin Sarat
During Tuesday’s oral argument before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. [read post]