Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 4061 - 4080
of 21,685
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Aug 2016, 11:13 am
Florida and Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 4:26 am
Given the high percentage of the market open to Doncaster, even where it could not use the REGURIN trade mark, the exclusive use of the REGURIN mark by Specialty in the UK did not contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States in relation to trospium chloride [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 9:26 am
SportFuel, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 7:14 am
C=HOLDINGS B.V. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 12:30 pm
"He also commented that in Interflora 1 (Interflora Inc v Marks and Spencer plc [2012] EWCA Civ 1501 [noted by the IPKat here] Lewison L.J. had stated that different considerations from the general position on surveys apply where the issue is whether a registered mark has acquired distinctiveness. [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 1:07 pm
United States v. [read post]
11 Sep 2024, 9:25 am
Hologic, Inc., 594 U.S. 559 (2021)), and he left an indelible mark on both our firm and United States patent law before he retired. [read post]
29 Apr 2014, 12:55 pm
See State v. [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 9:05 pm
Virginia State Board of Elections with another race-and-redistricting case, Cooper v. [read post]
18 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
"When presented with a question of statutory interpretation, a court's primary consideration is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature" (Matter of Walsh v New York State Comptroller, 34 NY3d 520, 524 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Digbasanis v Pelham Bay Donuts Inc., 224 AD3d 1047, 1048 [3d Dept 2024]). [read post]
18 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
"When presented with a question of statutory interpretation, a court's primary consideration is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature" (Matter of Walsh v New York State Comptroller, 34 NY3d 520, 524 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Digbasanis v Pelham Bay Donuts Inc., 224 AD3d 1047, 1048 [3d Dept 2024]). [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 3:50 am
Thus, to state a cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 , the plaintiff must “plead allegations from which damages attributable to the defendants’ conduct might be reasonably inferred” (Mizuno v Nunberg, 122 AD3d 594, 595 [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]; see Gumarova v Law Offs. of Paul A. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 6:05 am
Mark Egerman (Georgetown University Law Center) has posted Avoiding Confrontation on SSRN. [read post]
31 Jan 2016, 9:05 pm
NYPD retiree “shared his happiness at scoring the disability pension, as well as his achievements running marathons” [New York Daily News] Scott Greenfield on public sector unionism and Friedrichs v. [read post]
4 Mar 2007, 5:55 am
Trott's Woodproducts, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 8:37 am
In the Matter of Mark Scott v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 8:23 am
In Al-Dabagh v. [read post]
19 Feb 2010, 12:03 am
Still, nowhere is it written that when the shells come out, the mark can’t take a hammer to them.Footnotes1 Citizens United v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 9:28 am
Renna v. [read post]
3 Aug 2024, 11:22 am
Chief US District Judge Mark E. [read post]
