Search for: "John Does, 1-2"
Results 401 - 420
of 9,993
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2010, 1:58 am
Bush refused registration under Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act on the ground that the specimen does not show use of the applied-for mark as a trademark for the goods. [read post]
21 Jul 2009, 1:30 am
Here is the abstract:Existing empirical scholarship about judicial activism has almost exclusively focused on 1) the United States Supreme Court; and 2) actions by the judiciary which invalidate legislative, executive, and state actions. [read post]
24 Jan 2007, 6:15 pm
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
6 Feb 2020, 4:13 pm
In Part 2, we consider the Court of Appeal’s judgment involving reporting restriction orders and Sir John Gillen’s report into the law on serious sexual offences. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 3:43 am
In this "fairly close" case, the Board dismissed a two-pronged opposition to registration of the mark METRO LIVING & Design for real estate brokerage serves, finding that Opposer had failed to meets is burden to prove mere descriptiveness under Section 2(e)(1) or geographical descriptiveness under Section 2(e)(2). [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 2:57 am
The Board affirmed a Section 2(e)(1) refusal to register the mark TOURBILLON & Design (shown below), finding it to be merely descriptive of "jewellery, horological and chronometric instruments. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 3:18 am
Answer here.Text Copyright John L. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 6:38 am
 Specifically, this week all the major death penalty talk centers around (1) Virginia's efforts to execution the DC sniper, John Allen Muhammad, and (2) the consideration of capital prosections of the Food Hood shooter, Malik Nadal Hasan, and Ohio's sex offender serial killer, Anthony Sowell. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 2:21 pm
Martens.Date of Decision: October 2, 2013Facts: A Natrona County jury found John Allen Moore guilty of a single count of felony larceny, and Moore perfected a timely appeal from the district court’s judgment and sentence.Issues: Moore raises three issues which we restate as follows: 1. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 3:00 am
See Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Lanham Act. [read post]
24 Feb 2012, 5:00 am
I haven’t yet had a chance to read the article and its wealth of footnotes in great detail, but I will offer a few comments: 1. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 3:42 pm
His entire post is worth the read, but it can be summarized as follows: 1. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 10:39 pm
It does so by lumping together categories 1-3 and reporting only the sum and by repeatedly referring to "the consensus" but never stating clearly what that consensus is. [read post]
1 May 2012, 7:01 am
[1] John Crane, Garlock, and Crane Co. all appeared on the verdict sheet. [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 4:36 am
Girl 2 sent this to Guy 1. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 10:13 am
The post today is authored by John H. [read post]
25 Dec 2010, 7:53 pm
Hmmm, how does Salmonella Marler sound? [read post]
16 Apr 2011, 7:17 pm
While many courts have evaluated this kind of question using a first amendment analysis (i.e., is the John Doe’s interest in speaking anonymously outweighed by the plaintiff’s right to seek redress), the court in this case looked to more general concerns of avoiding litigation abuse. [read post]
14 May 2014, 6:13 pm
"... but the practical impact of the decision is blunted because the rules had already been sidelined by another lawsuit 3 1/2 years ago. [read post]
19 Feb 2021, 6:17 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
