Search for: "T-UP v. Consumer Protection"
Results 4121 - 4140
of 4,765
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jun 2010, 3:23 pm
The Interwebs are up in arms, again. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 6:21 pm
In Ruiz v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 10:04 am
According to court documents, Mills and his business partner, Rodney T. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 9:54 am
According to court documents, Mills and his business partner, Rodney T. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 6:11 am
Unlike in the UK, under section 1114 of the Lanham Act US trade mark owners have to prove that the defendant's use of their mark confused consumers. [read post]
6 Jun 2010, 12:52 am
Numatic thus had to show that it was justified in commencing proceedings because Qualtex was threatening to do acts which would amount to passing off. * On the evidence, at the date of the show and until the date that proceedings were commenced, Qualtex was both threatening and intending to launch a machine with substantially the same appearance as its prototype, although that threat was removed after the defence was served. * There was no real dispute that Numatic had a protectable… [read post]
5 Jun 2010, 1:20 pm
The money was consumed by the fees of the fiduciaries, caregivers and lawyers charged with her protection. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 2:05 am
The attorney for my clients in the last post certainly hadn’t mastered the holding in Patterson v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 12:42 pm
Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Wyeth v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 6:23 am
I could not agree more with this argument and to Justice Stevens’ credit I would add his majority opinion in Reno v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 5:18 am
Next on the agenda is Levin, Tax Commissioner of Ohio v. [read post]
28 May 2010, 9:50 pm
Producer initiates change and consumers are taught to want new things. [read post]
26 May 2010, 12:30 pm
McGraw v. [read post]
25 May 2010, 4:52 am
Circuit’s conclusion in Comcast v. [read post]
21 May 2010, 12:05 pm
The entire exercise is an effort to gin up, in the apt words of Kelly Cobb at Americans for Tax Reform, a “phony wireless crisis” to serve as a basis for a sweeping regulatory agenda for broadband and the Internet that, to succeed in the wake of Comcast v. [read post]
20 May 2010, 3:20 pm
See also, Harris v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 4:36 pm
In attempting to protect consumers, federal and state regulations perversely harmed them by preserving barriers to entry that thwarted robust (or even minimal) competition and innovation. [read post]
19 May 2010, 6:47 am
Opinion below (5th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Amicus brief of the SRK Wilshire Partners Title: AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 5:27 am
[WSJ] WaPo editorializes in favor of preemption in consumer financial protection. [read post]
18 May 2010, 12:31 pm
Judge Robreno looked at the consumer protection laws of each relevant state and held that Delaware’s consumer protection law conflicted with the consumer protection laws of the other three states: Pennsylvania law requires reliance and Delaware law does not; New York law requires a plaintiff to show the defendant’s deceptive act caused plaintiff’s injuries and Delaware law does not; and Michigan law is limited to transactions… [read post]
