Search for: "Harman v. United States"
Results 21 - 40
of 48
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Apr 2011, 1:04 pm
On February 23, 2011, in response to Federal court orders in Sierra Club v. [read post]
23 Sep 2020, 11:35 pm
In Sisvel v. [read post]
11 Oct 2009, 9:56 pm
United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 7:49 am
* * * * The three appellants in this appeal, GPG, Trimone, and ELE, import ground fault circuit interrupters ("GFCIs") into the United States. [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 2:35 pm
” United States v. [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 9:01 pm
Yet if that explains (albeit without justifying) the majority’s rejection of the due process and equal protection claims, a threshold requirement of support in constitutional text cannot explain the bottom line in Jones, because the plaintiffs also relied on an express constitutional text.They invoked the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which provides: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote” in any federal election “shall not be denied or abridged by… [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 1:22 pm
United States v. [read post]
13 May 2012, 4:00 am
In United States v. [read post]
18 Mar 2021, 11:26 am
Similarly, Huawei is a tier 2 supplier through such telematics control unit (TCU) makers as Continental and Harman (a Samsung subsidiary).With a belated filing on February 20, 2021, Thales--represented by Simmons & Simmons antitrust attorney Dr. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 2:51 am
That was so even though it was common practice in the beauty products sector to market products either under a combination of surnames and first names or alternatively under one or the other.The decision in Case C-51/09 Becker v Harman International Industries (BARBARA BECKER v BECKER) could apply by analogy to this controversy in order to conclude that a likelihood of confusion does not automatically exist 'when the earlier mark consists of a first name and the… [read post]
7 Apr 2024, 4:37 pm
United States The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued its decision to grant the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s (CCDH) motion to strike out under an anti-SLAPP statute in the case of X CCDH. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 5:47 pm
Harman v. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 5:47 pm
Harman v. [read post]
17 May 2015, 4:40 pm
United States Florida: a former superintendent has had his lawsuit against the accounting firm Mauldin & Jenkins dismissed. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 12:25 am
-Conn (IPKat) (EPLAW) EWHC (Ch): All threats, no action…: Best Buy Co Inc and another v Worldwide Sales Corporation Espana SL (IPKat) United States US General California’s Trade Secret disclosure statute doesn’t apply in Federal Court – or maybe it does (IP ADR Blog) US Patents USPTO wants to change restriction practice (Patent Baristas) The post-Bilski landscape: Why some tried, but failed, to ban ‘business method’… [read post]
1 Mar 2015, 4:18 pm
United States In the case of Simorangkir v Courtney Love Cobain the Court of Appeal of the State of California dismissed an appeal by Courtney Love seeking to have the case dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. [read post]
16 Sep 2022, 4:34 pm
Decisions this Week United StatesHiQ Labs v. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 3:50 am
The Leveson Inquiry heard from Gordon Brown MP, George Osborne MP, Sir John Major, Ed Miliband MP, Harriet Harman QC MP, Nick Clegg MP, Alex Salmond MSP, David Cameron MP. [read post]
12 Sep 2008, 2:33 pm
: (IP finance), MARQUES international advertising portal goes live: (Class 46) Global - Patents Using patent landscaping analytics to improve the quality of M & A decisions: a review of Cox Enterprises’ $300M purchase of Adify: (IP Asset Maximiser Blog), Universities reap royalty rewards; investors ignore IP at their peril: (IAM), Top IP-owning nations claim faster patent processing; near harmonisation deal: (Intellectual Property Watch), Bosch, Xerox and Dupont sign up… [read post]
14 May 2012, 4:33 am
Resolved cases include: Mr Stephen Wren v Daily Mail (Clause 1), 11/05/2012; A man v The Sun (Clause 1), 11/05/2012; Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 11/05/2012; Ms Louise Pyne v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 08/05/2012. [read post]
