Search for: "Marks v. USA"
Results 381 - 400
of 1,900
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Sep 2019, 1:34 am
Consequently, the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to allow it to reconsider this award (4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. [read post]
25 Aug 2019, 2:28 pm
Fla. 2012) (quoting Hako-Med USA, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 11:57 pm
The court affirmed the jury’s verdict that the defendants were guilty of contributory infringement, because with that constructive knowledge, they continued to lease space to those subtenants (Luxottica Grp., SpA v. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 11:04 am
Justice Hennessy relied on Hechevarria v Reale and Fish v Shainhouse (below) in calculating the value of the FLA claims. $30,000 each Wilcox v “Miss Megan” (The), 2007 FC 1004, 2007 CarswellNat 3324 (FC), aff’d 2008 FC 56, 2008 CarswellNat 1193 (FC). [read post]
19 Aug 2019, 11:39 am
., LLC v. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 2:18 pm
A notable example of the latter was her dissent in Schuette v. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 4:17 am
The court also affirmed a district judge’s order sanctioning L&L for failing to disclose its third-party license agreement in discovery (Beach Mart, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Aug 2019, 4:05 am
It is well settled that “[a] cause of action for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed” (Elstein v Phillips Lytle, LLP, 108 AD3d 1073, 1073 [4th Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and that, “[w]hat is important [in determining the accrual date] is when the malpractice was committed, not when the client discovered it” (Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 95 [1982]; see Town of Amherst v Weiss, 120 AD3d 1550,… [read post]
16 Jul 2019, 8:11 am
This was the case in Deslandes v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 1:24 pm
Boltex Manufacturing Co. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 4:17 am
Common Cause and Lamone v. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 3:53 pm
This case, he says, marks the third time in recent years involving “state efforts to curb drunk driving. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 2:26 am
As a result, condition (v) was deemed satisfied.Turning to likelihood of confusion (condition (vi)), the court recalled that this requires a global appreciation, taking into account all relevant factors, and must be undertaken from the perspective of the average consumer (see Comic Enterprises Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [2016] EWCA Civ 41).Benefit submitted that no such likelihood of confusion would subsist because of case law (notably Nestle v… [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 2:41 pm
This morning the court issued an opinion in Kisor v. [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 6:40 pm
Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 6:12 pm
Supreme Court in Iancu v. [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 12:13 pm
As the majority points out, the graves of those who died in WWI were marked with either a cross or a star of David. [read post]
20 Jun 2019, 2:36 pm
The post Afternoon round-up: The American Legion v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 4:15 am
In Gamble v. [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 2:01 am
Robert MargolisDistrict court correctly held that trademark owner failed to raise genuine factual issue as to secondary meaning of the asserted mark. [read post]
