Search for: "United States v. Holder"
Results 3961 - 3980
of 4,263
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 May 2009, 12:29 pm
Autogenomics v. [read post]
25 May 2009, 1:37 am
[single citation] In a 2004 decision (SOCAN v. [read post]
21 May 2009, 4:44 am
According to Costco: “The words “lawfully made under this title” quite clearly do not mean “manufactured in the United States, and also manufactured abroad, but only in instances where the copyright holder sells into the United States. [read post]
18 May 2009, 10:25 am
In United States 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]
13 May 2009, 8:00 pm
United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the PTO, Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation, which hold the patents on the BRCA genes. [read post]
12 May 2009, 11:10 pm
She's a member of the United States Attorney's Organized Crime Task Force. [read post]
10 May 2009, 5:53 pm
United States Issue: Whether the “honest services” clause of 18 U.S.C. [read post]
8 May 2009, 9:00 am
Canada US targets Canada over copyright in Special 301 Report (Michael Geist) (Excess Copyright) (Michael Geist) (Michael Geist) (Michael Geist) (Michael Geist) (Michael Geist) (Michael Geist) (Ars Technica) (At Last... the 1709 Copyright Blog) (Michael Geist) Federal Court awards $250,000 to Microsoft over sale of two computers with unauthorised copies of Microsoft software: Microsoft v PC Village et al (Excess Copyright) CIRA: Complaint dismissed, costs awarded against… [read post]
6 May 2009, 12:13 pm
Wakefern Food Corp. v. [read post]
4 May 2009, 5:00 am
There may be up to half a million frozen embryos in the United States, although many of them are incapable of becoming viable fetuses. [read post]
3 May 2009, 7:55 am
In Olsen v. [read post]
2 May 2009, 12:34 pm
The Supreme Court, see United States v. [read post]
1 May 2009, 11:00 am
(Spicy IP) Defining ‘literary works’ for copyright protection (International Law Office) Drafting and interpretation of patent claims (IP Frontline) Israel Israel Patent Office accepts lacks jurisdiction and rules anyway: Karl Storz GmbH & Co v Bausch and Lomb (The IP Factor) Economist report ranks Israel 10th in terms of innovation (The IP Factor) Mauritius Mauritius launches IP sensitivity drive (Afro-IP) Netherlands Presiding… [read post]
1 May 2009, 10:00 am
: IceTV v Nine Network (IP Think Tank) (Allens Arthur Robinson) (Managing Intellectual Property) Canada Quebec Superior Court judge approves class action copyright case concerning inclusion of freelance articles in online database: Electronic-Rights Defence Committee v Southam Inc (ipblog.ca) CIRA domain name dispute panel finds reverse hijacking in case involving forsale.ca (Michael Geist) Canadian music pirates of 1897 (BoingBoing) (Excess Copyright)… [read post]
1 May 2009, 4:43 am
However, prior to Dauben’s positive verdict, Southern filed its claim in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 3:29 pm
And does the United States take that position today? [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 3:00 am
Katyal, Deputy Solicitor General will argue 20 minutes for the United States and Debo Adegbile of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in New York will argue 10 minutes for the intervenor-appellees. [read post]
28 Apr 2009, 3:04 am
The Lanham Trademark Act (title 15, chapter 22 of the United States Code) is legislation that contains the federal statutes of trademark law in the United States. [read post]
28 Apr 2009, 12:09 am
Mullin suggests that reporters covering such patent lawsuits should make this much clearer, even suggesting something along the lines of the following:"Picsel, which does not claim that Apple copied its patent or products, is asking for a royalty to be paid on all iPhones sold in the United States. [read post]
