Search for: "No Respondents Named" Results 361 - 380 of 30,635
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Aug 2011, 2:39 am by gmlevine
Thus, The majority has found that the Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 6:30 am by Mark Astarita
General questions include: the witness' name; date of birth; home and office addresses and telephone numbers; all telephone numbers; social security number; names of all immediate family members; full employment history, including job descriptions and dates of employment; complete educational background and identification of any securities- or business-related courses taken; all licenses held and when obtained; any disciplinary proceedings in which the witness was named;… [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 3:05 am by Steve Brachmann
PopSockets filed its Section 337 complaint with the ITC last April, naming 14 respondents, with 13 based in China and one operating in Hong Kong. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 11:25 am by Emily Chan
Last week, we discussed the benefits of trademark registration in “What’s in a Name? [read post]
30 Jun 2021, 9:00 pm by Michael Burke
  It will also be interesting to see how colleges and universities respond to their student-athletes’ outside endorsements. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 2:59 am by gmlevine
Once the complainant offers a prima facie case that respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, the burden shifts to respondent to provide credible evidence that it does. [read post]
6 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
  Noting that although a school district clerk may accept service on behalf of a board of education, "the board was not named as a respondent". [read post]
6 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
  Noting that although a school district clerk may accept service on behalf of a board of education, "the board was not named as a respondent". [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
*  The appeal also named the high school principal and a school nurse as “Individual Respondents”. [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
*  The appeal also named the high school principal and a school nurse as “Individual Respondents”. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 10:32 am by Jamison Koehler
Because it has always been called the Metropolitan Police Department, she responded. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 10:32 am by Jamison Koehler
Because it has always been called the Metropolitan Police Department, she responded. [read post]
4 Sep 2023, 12:20 pm by Allan Blutstein
If you submit a FOIA request to a credit union, it would not be required to respond. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 2:30 am by gmlevine
” Knowing that the dominant term in the domain name is a well known trademark “suggests that Respondent registered the disputed domain name precisely for its trademark value, rather than in spite of it. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 11:31 am by Marcia Oddi
Posted this morning on the ISBA Facebook page: Judge Moberly responds to question "Name two things that need improving... [read post]
13 Aug 2011, 11:25 am by Marty Schwimmer
Respondent established that it was developing a product for muscles named FLEXAPRO. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 2:46 am by gmlevine
It must make an affirmative showing that the respondent lack rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. [read post]
25 Feb 2020, 3:08 am
" In April 2015, Lajtay began selling the beverages, naming named Hole-in-One Drinks, LC as the vendor and producer.In sum, Respondent filed the intent-to-use application in his own name, even though Respondent and Darryl Cazares were negotiating or had already agreed to form Hole-In-One Drinks, LLC, the entity through which they intended to sell HOLE IN ONE branded beverages. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 2:39 am
A respondent’s honest concurrent use of a term generally qualifies as a legitimate interest in a domain name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, particular where the parties’ goods or services are in different classes, Shem, LLC v. [read post]