Search for: "SCHWARTZ v. GOODE et al" Results 21 - 32 of 32
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Aug 2022, 10:52 pm by Jeff Nowak
Barris et al: fielding occasional calls about one’s job is a “professional courtesy” that does not interfere with FMLA rights (FMLA claims dismissed) Persson v. [read post]
20 Nov 2007, 8:55 am
While current laws do provide some protection against imitation goods, such protection is only for trademarked goods and does not provide any protection when the good  is copied under a slightly different logo or label. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 10:44 am by Lisa Ouellette
(Builds on scholars such as Sean Seymore and Ben Roin; see also Krieger et al. on drug novelty. [read post]
9 Aug 2016, 10:44 am by Chris Castle
  If you have been following the machinations by the Obama Justice Department [sic] over amending the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees,  you may have found yourself wondering who was responsible for rejecting the good faith efforts of the songwriting community in favor of a cynical back room deal with multinational tech companies and broadcasters. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:00 am
(Class 46)   India Chennai IP Appellate Board: Well-known trademarks - consumer recollection is key: Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Jai ram (International Law Office) Bombay High Court rules on the infringement of copyright in drawings: Indiana Gratings Private Limited & Anr v Anand Udyog Fabricators Private Limited & Ors (Spicy IP) Is ‘science’ essential for creating patent lawyers: some ‘general’ thoughts (Spicy… [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:00 am
(Class 46)   India Chennai IP Appellate Board: Well-known trademarks - consumer recollection is key: Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Jai ram (International Law Office) Bombay High Court rules on the infringement of copyright in drawings: Indiana Gratings Private Limited & Anr v Anand Udyog Fabricators Private Limited & Ors (Spicy IP) Is ‘science’ essential for creating patent lawyers: some ‘general’ thoughts (Spicy… [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 3:12 pm by James R. Marsh
A child who has posed for a camera must go through life knowing that the recording is circulating within the mass distribution system for child pornography.13 The Court reaffirmed this truism in Ashcroft v. [read post]