Search for: "State v. Holderness"
Results 3801 - 3820
of 8,247
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Nov 2007, 9:29 pm
More on Franco v. [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 10:37 pm
On page 3, that one specifically points to the Mannheim Regional Court's Nokia v. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 6:00 am
See, e.g., Holder v. [read post]
21 May 2013, 12:33 pm
Kappos v. [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 1:12 pm
United States strengthens the case against Trump's sweeping use of Section 212(f)—here and here: Trump v. [read post]
10 Dec 2019, 12:20 am
GuestKat Peter Ling reports on this interesting decision.Richard Vary provides a guest contribution, in which he looks into the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, which overturned a decision issued in December 2017 by Judge Selna in the Central District of California, instead going to a jury trial.Trade MarksGuestKat Léon Dijkman looks at the recent Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in Primart… [read post]
14 Sep 2023, 8:00 am
OPPO and Optis v. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 2:08 am
Lévêque and Ménière Leveque model two policy approaches. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 4:00 am
Back in June, I wrote about Kernel Records Oy v. [read post]
22 Apr 2023, 11:27 am
Defendants from the automotive and telecommunications industries sometimes have approximately ten suppliers (example: Nokia v. [read post]
31 Aug 2007, 12:39 pm
Epicrealm Licensing, LLC v. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 2:11 am
If the holder’s claim is for trademark infringement its remedy is in a civil court of law. [read post]
8 May 2024, 1:44 pm
Ariz. v. [read post]
16 Jun 2016, 6:25 pm
Justice Kagan with opinion in Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
10 Jun 2020, 4:08 pm
Timm, both United States Supreme Court cases. [read post]
8 Oct 2012, 12:58 pm
Connell v. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 9:56 am
GL Trade Americas, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 4:30 am
” Copyright Litigation Handbook § 9:9 (Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim ) (2010). [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 6:21 pm
" Holder v. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 1:13 pm
As you may recall, the FTC is pursuing 1-800 Contacts for antitrust violations based on 1-800 Contacts having sued and then settled with competitors who bought keyword ads on 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks. [read post]
