Search for: "Cola v. State" Results 401 - 420 of 626
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Aug 2012, 1:02 pm by Susan Brenner
[Vento] compared his sweepstakes to other sweepstakes programs offered by businesses such as McDonald's, ColaCola, and Albertsons stores. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 1:08 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  This leads in turn to an equally unfortunate footnote recognizing that the statement in text does not describe the state of the world: plenty of people do write their own Star Trek stories. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 7:42 am by Mario Herman
In Gujarat Bottling Company Limited v Coca Cola Company (AIR (1995) Supreme Court 237), the Supreme Court of India held: "Since the negative stipulation in ... the . . . [read post]
14 May 2012, 2:07 pm by jslawcenter
., Coca-Cola, Inc., etc) the profits of the corporation were taxed as income to the corporation AND they were taxed again as income to the individuals that owned the company – the so-called double tax problem. [read post]
7 May 2012, 12:06 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
More principled approach: Coca-Cola v. [read post]
22 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver
The division held that the subject-matter of claim 1 differed from the device of I2 […] in that it included the (additional and final) feature dealing with the relationship between the light output L and the signal level V. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 12:46 pm by jleaming@acslaw.org
ColorOfChange and the Center for Media and Democracy have successfully encouraged about a dozen corporations, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield and Coca-Cola to stop sponsoring ALEC. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 6:22 am by Matthew Shultz
The Fourth Circuit (Traxler, C.J.) has issued a unanimous decision in Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 10:33 am by Travis Crabtree
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals may have provided trademark owners a little hope in its decision in Rosetta Stone v. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 10:33 am by Travis Crabtree
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals may have provided trademark owners a little hope in its decision in Rosetta Stone v. [read post]