Search for: "US Fidelis, Inc"
Results 401 - 420
of 1,020
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Dec 2009, 11:32 am
In re Medtronic, Inc. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 2:14 pm
” When a court determines whether a government agency’s interpretation of a statute is valid, the court applies the Supreme Court’s two-step analysis in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 12:13 am
"Use in Commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade . . . [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 2:14 am
” In eSnipe, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 12:20 pm
(blogs.wsj.com) S-1 Filing for Zynga, Inc. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 4:00 am
Trans Continental Records, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 10:26 am
Satiety, Inc., 2011 WL 1327684 (E.D.N.Y. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 7:04 pm
No. 3689 (S.C.J.) and BMG Canada Inc. v. [read post]
28 May 2021, 1:40 pm
Cole Financial, Inc. [read post]
26 Oct 2023, 8:53 am
However, a financial advisor or brokerage firm cannot argue that they currently lack the “bona fide ability to pay”. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 5:18 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 5:18 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 10:15 am
Wells Bowen Realty, Inc., 736 F.3d 722 (6th 2013). [read post]
22 Jan 2010, 2:32 am
Vrvv Inc., D2009-1418 (WIPO January 4, 2010). [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 3:08 pm
Marco & Sons, Inc., 55 USPQ2d 1298, 1300 (TTAB 2000) Interestingly, however, if Plaintiff has a bona fide intent to use the same mark for related goods, and is about to file an intent-to-use application to register the mark, and believes registration of the mark will be refused in view of respondent's registration, this satisfies the "damaged" requirement. [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 4:52 am
Some recent examples are: Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc paid $360 million to resolve claims that it illegally paid thousands of Medicare patients’ co-pays for its pulmonary arterial hypertension drugs. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 6:26 am
Westchester Hills Golf Club, Inc. [read post]
31 Dec 2017, 2:47 pm
Dale Maintenance Sys., Inc., 590 F.Supp. 1410, 1416-17 (N.D.Ill.1984) (allowing opposite sex attendant into washrooms while in use is intrusion on personal privacy warranting sex-based hiring policy); Backus v. [read post]
Timely, or too soon? Competition Bureau releases guidance on “failing firm” claims in merger reviews
14 May 2020, 6:00 am
On April 29, in a rare decision based on the “failing firm” rationale, the Competition Bureau announced it would not challenge the acquisition of Total Metal Recovery (TMR) Inc. by American Iron & Metal Company Inc. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 11:45 pm
Brands, Inc. v. [read post]
