Search for: "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, interested parties"
Results 381 - 400
of 1,422
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Aug 2019, 9:38 am
The estate argued that the deceased and the plaintiff had entered into a buy/sell agreement and that the deceased had told his wife that the proceeds of the policies were to be used for one partner to purchase the interest in the business from the other upon his death. [read post]
26 Aug 2019, 9:22 am
Stouffer and National Geographic allegedly “engaged in numerous discussions regarding [National Geographic] potentially licensing or purchasing” Stouffer’s Wild America film library. [read post]
19 Aug 2019, 8:20 am
Thus, it was allegedly harmed “when consumers are misled into purchasing any falsely advertised product that competes with any product that contains ingredients that are sourced from [Plaintiff] and/or products that are licensed by [Plaintiff]. [read post]
19 Aug 2019, 5:01 am
Reader Morris directed my attention to a recent Judge Mathis case, in which both the plaintiff and defendant agreed not only that the plaintiff had promised to pay the defendant $3,500 when she received her tax refund, but that she had, in fact, made that payment to the defendant when she received her tax refund. [read post]
18 Aug 2019, 8:18 pm
The absence of any evidence of direct involvement in Mr. [read post]
15 Aug 2019, 11:24 pm
While the record lacks direct evidence of payments from TERI to the program, TERI's guaranty of all loans made under the Program conclusively establishes that the Program was funded in part by TERI. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 6:31 am
Over time, the plaintiff was awarded increasing access to the parties=children. [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 8:54 am
The top-line conclusion: “it is unlikely that any appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers would be confused by Perfect Body’s Campaign, especially given the lack of any direct evidence of actual consumer confusion. [read post]
15 Jul 2019, 5:01 am
Lozano was perpetuating that by purchasing Ms. [read post]
14 Jul 2019, 5:11 pm
” A claimant can show a “sufficiently close relationship” only if the majority of persons whose interests the foundation represents are Netherlands residents; if the party against who the claim is directed is Netherland resident and circumstances suggest a sufficient relationship with the Netherlands; or if the event to which the claim relates took place in the Netherlands. [read post]
6 Jul 2019, 8:00 am
(finding initial interest confusion unpersuasive where there was no evidence that customers purchased infringing product “in their confusion. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 1:24 pm
As competitors, they’d be within the Lanham Act zone of interests. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 1:54 pm
Stated differently, “direct liability must be premised on conduct that can reasonably be described as the direct cause of the infringement. [read post]
23 Jun 2019, 3:01 pm
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. [read post]
19 Jun 2019, 2:53 pm
For reasons similar to those for M&A offerings, tracing would be relatively easy in the case of direct offerings, especially closer to the date of the offering (before the shares in question were re-sold to other parties). [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 1:25 pm
It gets even more confusing where there are multiple injured plaintiffs, or uninsured vehicles in the accident. [read post]
16 Jun 2019, 12:42 pm
However, American courts should not take jurisdiction over foreign activities “which have no direct or intended effect on US consumers or export opportunities” since this would encroach on the jurisdiction of a foreign state without any overriding justification based on legitimate U.S. interests. [read post]
16 Jun 2019, 12:42 pm
However, American courts should not take jurisdiction over foreign activities “which have no direct or intended effect on US consumers or export opportunities” since this would encroach on the jurisdiction of a foreign state without any overriding justification based on legitimate U.S. interests. [read post]
16 Jun 2019, 12:42 pm
However, American courts should not take jurisdiction over foreign activities “which have no direct or intended effect on US consumers or export opportunities” since this would encroach on the jurisdiction of a foreign state without any overriding justification based on legitimate U.S. interests. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 10:22 am
” “To satisfy the first element, the plaintiff must show that ‘the alleged practice was likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same circumstances. [read post]
