Search for: "Aesthetic Associates, Inc." Results 21 - 40 of 190
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Oct 2022, 10:46 am by Holly Brezee
Soc’y for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc., 192 USPQ 170, 173 (TTAB 1976). [read post]
20 Jun 2022, 10:28 am by David Wilson
In a case of wide-reaching impact, the North Carolina Supreme Court on Friday, June 17, 2022, issued its decision in Belmont Association, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2022, 9:21 am by Harmony Taylor
In a case of wide-reaching impact, the North Carolina Supreme Court on Friday, June 17, 2022, issued its decision in Belmont Association, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2022, 9:21 am by Harmony Taylor
Harmony Taylor & David Wilson In a case of wide-reaching impact, the North Carolina Supreme Court on Friday, June 17, 2022, issued its decision in Belmont Association, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Apr 2022, 9:25 am by Whitney Hodges
  In such instances, the applicant is on the hook for the costs associated with expensive and time-intensive CEQA coverage and any related legal challenges from the public or other regulatory agencies. [read post]
19 Feb 2022, 12:00 pm by Thomas James
That is to say, it serves an aesthetic function. [read post]
29 Nov 2021, 9:37 am by Elim
Victoria Shroff, Canadian Animal Laws (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2021). [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 10:58 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Another way to put it is that aesthetic functionality requires you to have an understanding of the definition of the market in which other clothing makers should be free to compete. [read post]
8 Aug 2021, 8:17 am by Eric Goldman
This circular logic reminded me a little of one of my least-favorite trademark cases of all time, the SMJ Group, Inc. v. 417 Lafayette Restaurant case. [read post]
15 Jun 2021, 9:03 am by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.
Shadow Glen Homeowners Association, Inc. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 917, that homeowners associations do not have a duty of care to provide onsite parking to invitees. [read post]
31 May 2021, 9:02 am by Richard Hunt
The key sentence from the press release is this: “HUD’s charge alleges that Apollo Gardens HOA required association members who sought a modification or accommodation due to a disability to follow the same process as members who sought to remodel a residence for aesthetic reasons. [read post]