Search for: "BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES V FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONS"
Results 21 - 37
of 37
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Feb 2015, 9:37 pm
This Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to reclassify ISPs like Verizon and Comcast that connect us to the Internet as common carriers and adopt strong net neutrality rules to protect users, innovation, and free speech online. [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 8:00 am
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 11:58 am
By contrast, the [Federal Communications] Commission reasonably concluded, a consumer cannot purchase Internet service without also purchasing a connection to the Internet. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:05 pm
Circuit under Chevron.[10] The FCC, under the Biden administration, has voted to reclassify Internet broadband access as a communications service, subject to Title II.[11] All of this is possible under Chevron, which, as the D.C. [read post]
25 Apr 2021, 8:45 pm
Brand X Internet Services; and (2) whether the divided 9th Circuit erred in affirming the FCC’s interpretation of 47 U.S.C. [read post]
5 May 2009, 8:39 am
Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), the Supreme Court deferred to the Federal Communications Commission’s ruling that, under the Communications Act of 1934, cable broadband providers are “information service providers” and not “telecommunications carriers. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 6:33 am
Brand X Internet Services, the Supreme Court affirmed in a 5-4 split decision the FCC’s discretion to decide whether to impose net neutrality regulation on internet service providers based on the Court’s determination that the relevant statutory provisions are ambiguous. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 1:23 pm
Brand X, 545 U.S. 967 (2005). [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 2:19 pm
However, this case regarding administrative procedure gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wide latitude to write regulations that give wild and implausible interpretations to federal statutes. 2. [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 11:28 am
Though the complaint was unanimously approved by a Republican-led Federal Trade Commission, and the agency based its case on the testimony of one of the nation’s most prominent conservative economists, Judge Kavanaugh thought it would “turn back the clock” to the “the bad old days when mergers were viewed with suspicion regardless of their economic benefits. [read post]
25 Oct 2008, 12:18 am
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
14 Apr 2021, 7:30 am
The key, as Thomas explained in his 2005 Brand X decision, is “how the consumer perceives the service being offered. [read post]
9 May 2008, 10:30 pm
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 3:40 am
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 7:54 am
Starting with Mead, then Brand-X, Fox v. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 12:21 pm
Gov’t agencies and private parties may police these claims under federal and state laws.Artist compensation claims are fact-based, not opinion/puffery. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 3:14 pm
In addition, by November 15, 2008, the Secretary must establish limits on: the scope of MA and PDP marketing appointments with prospective enrollees; the use of co-branding; the offering of gifts and promotional items; the use of certain types of compensation; and the use of agents, brokers, or other representatives who have not completed specified training and testing. [read post]
