Search for: "State v. Marks" Results 4101 - 4120 of 19,483
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jun 2018, 4:11 am by Edith Roberts
The first was Hughes v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 12:55 pm
  KFC, which operates in the state solely as a licensor of independently owned franchises, was held liable for income taxes owed on income generated from licensing KFC’s marks and systems. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 12:55 pm
  KFC, which operates in the state solely as a licensor of independently owned franchises, was held liable for income taxes owed on income generated from licensing KFC’s marks and systems. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 5:03 am by Jon Gelman
Title Agency, LLC, 545 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 2:56 am by Jeremy
 The SCA held that a trade mark does not constitute 'capital' as envisaged in Regulation 10(1)(c) and that, accordingly, foreign exchange approval was not required to transfer trade marks offshore.In response to this, the exchange control authorities have now amended the regulations specifically to state that 'capital' does include an IP right, whether registered or not, and that “exported from the republic” includes the transfer of an… [read post]
Kolarik II, “Implications of the Supreme Court’s Historic Decision in Wayfair,” State Tax Notes, July 9, 2018, p. 125. [4] See, e.g., Bridges v. [read post]
14 Aug 2010, 12:46 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
My Damon Key colleagues Mark Murakami and Tred Eyerly and I have posted our forthcoming essay Of Woodchucks and Prune Yards: A View of Judicial Takings From the Trenches on SSRN here, containing our thoughts on Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 3:33 pm by James Goodman
California Emergency Physicians Medical Group; Med America; Mark Alderdice; Robert Buscho, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (No. 12-16514) (April 8, 2015). [read post]
7 Dec 2013, 9:16 am by Eric Goldman
” Citing Perfect 10 v. ccBill, the court reiterates that Section 230 applies to state IP claims, so the state claims are dismissed with prejudice. [read post]