Search for: "General Motors Corporation v. Morgan" Results 21 - 40 of 42
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Feb 2012, 6:31 am
In the case of Gram Panchayat & Anr. v. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 10:57 am by admin
– Staff, Herald Tribune, February 18, 2010 Kinder Morgan Port Manatee Terminal LLC, a subsidiary of a Houston-based company doing business at Port Manatee, has agreed to pay a $1 million penalty for violating the Clean Air Act, according to federal prosecutors. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 3:51 am
(IP tango) ECJ sets aside partial refusal to grant CTM for ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’ (progress through technology): Audi AG v OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) (The IP Factor) ECJ: Davidoff criteria for exhaustion apply also if goods were first marketed within the EEA: Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel CV and others v Diesel SpA (JIPLP) Time for a general grumble - General Court decisions missing images, no English version: G-Star Raw Denim kft v OHIM,… [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 6:48 pm
Then 1973 rolled around and all of a sudden General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and American Motors… the Big 4, if you can remember that far back… all seemed terribly out of step with what was going on in the world. [read post]
30 May 2008, 9:09 am
: (Spicy IP), India: DCGI preparing document to implement patent-registration linkage: (Spicy IP), New Zealand: Generic pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of NZ IP laws and medicines regulations: (International Law Office), Uganda: Cipla licenses ARV technology into Uganda: (Afro-IP), US: Money saved through generic prescriptions: (GenericsWeb), US: Government plans to keep close tab on drug patent settlements: (GenericsWeb), US: FTC reports 14 deals to delay… [read post]
30 Nov 2007, 7:33 am
The vote by the shorthanded SEC is a victory for General Motors, Bank of America, and other issuers that urged the commission to bar proposals to allow investors to nominate board candidates to appear on corporate proxy statements. [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 10:48 am
This could occur, the Appellate Division held, because the defendant was a New Jersey corporation and New Jersey's "strong interest in deterrence" of consumer fraud by New Jersey businesses outweighed all other states' interests. [read post]