Search for: "State v. Holder"
Results 3681 - 3700
of 8,247
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jan 2015, 7:48 am
Again, the possession of the credit or debit card is enough warrant the felony enhancement in New York State. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 9:40 pm
(“V-One”) in June 2005. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 12:28 pm
In Moncrieffe v. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 12:04 pm
Apparently both sides conceded that the faculty members were the copyright holders. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 10:47 am
In Martin Blomqvist v Rolex SA, [2014] EUECJ C-98/13 (06 February 2014), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that a pirated good is distributed in a member State when it is purchased online from a non-member State and shipped from another non-member State into a member State. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 6:30 am
First a word about the plaintiff: Some Kat readers may recall that Pom Wonderful prevailed in a closely watched decision given by the United States Supreme Court on June 12, 2014, Pom Wonderful LLC v Coca Cola Company. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 5:33 am
In the case that is the subject of the appeal, Kimble v. [read post]
1 Jan 2015, 4:10 am
Eric Holder Hon. [read post]
30 Dec 2014, 4:49 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. [read post]
27 Dec 2014, 2:19 am
More from Europe: In Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box the CJEU said that circumventing a protection system may not be unlawful. [read post]
24 Dec 2014, 11:50 am
The state dismissed the conspiracy charge. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 7:25 am
In Decon Group, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
Supreme Court last week denied Certiorari to the state of Arizona in the case called Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 1:33 pm
Herring v. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 7:53 am
In short, from now on, when two registered Spanish trade marks coexist, the holder of the earlier trade mark no longer has to seek the nullity or invalidity of the later trade mark before seeking to forbid its use.Traditional doctrineHistorically, Spanish doctrine has considered that the owner of a registered Spanish trade mark had a right to use the trade mark, which didn’t yield even to the ius prohibendi of an earlier-registered Spanish trade mark. [read post]
19 Dec 2014, 6:30 am
Malibu Media v. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 9:17 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 9:59 am
Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 119 (1964). [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 7:55 am
See Stewart v. [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 5:32 am
New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Dev. [read post]
