Search for: "Andersen v Andersen"
Results 361 - 380
of 571
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2009, 3:15 am
Supreme Court, in a summary disposition, vacated and remanded to the Sixth Circuit decision in in Kimberlin v Renasant Bank (Dkt No 08-816) for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's Court's May 4, 2009 decision, Arthur Andersen LLP v Carlisle ___U.S. [read post]
21 Jun 2009, 10:00 pm
(China Law Blog) Europe ECJ issues preliminary ruling in L’Oreal/Bellure regarding whether imitation perfumes were protected as permissible comparative advertising (Class 46) (IPKat) CFI: Proof of trade mark use: Harwin International LLC v OHIM, Cuadrado SA (IPKat) CFI: Last minute reprieve for passing off: Last Minute Network v OHIM-Last Minute Tour (IPKat) CFI dismisses Korsch’s appeal against refusal to grant CTM for ‘PharmaResearch’ due… [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 12:36 pm
In Edwards v. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 9:14 am
Here is the abstract: Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 7:40 am
Relying on the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Andersen v. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 8:45 am
Andersen pointed out that a federal court in International Business Machines Corp. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2009, 6:00 am
See Arthur Andersen LLP, et al. v. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 3:18 am
Here is the abstract: Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
27 May 2009, 7:16 am
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. [read post]
26 May 2009, 4:09 pm
Arthur Andersen (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, 946 . . .? [read post]
25 May 2009, 8:09 am
Paul v. [read post]
20 May 2009, 1:02 pm
In its opinion, the court noted that under People v. [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:24 am
’ (China Law Blog) Europe ECJ finds similar marks on wine and glasses not likely to cause confusion: Waterford Wedgewood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) AG Colomer opines in Maple leaf trade mark battle: joined cases American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates SA (IPKat) (Excess Copyright) CFI: Restitutio and time limits: how does the law stand now for CTMs? [read post]
18 May 2009, 2:00 am
In Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
14 May 2009, 9:24 pm
Supreme Court case on this issue, Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
13 May 2009, 9:45 am
Arthur Andersen, the California Supreme Court has broadly interpreted the California Business and Professions Code to further prohibit employee noncompetition agreements which seek to prevent a former employee from working for a competitor, subject to specific statutory exceptions. [read post]
12 May 2009, 8:42 pm
Supreme Court decided Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
12 May 2009, 1:15 pm
Arthur Andersen & Co., 566 F.2d 659, 662-63 (9th Cir.1977); Doe v. [read post]
12 May 2009, 10:53 am
In the Oregon class action against the RIAA, MediaSentry, the record companies, and Settlement Support Center, Andersen v. [read post]
7 May 2009, 8:48 am
Supreme Court case, Arthur Andersen v. [read post]
