Search for: "Express LLC" Results 421 - 440 of 7,345
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jun 2023, 10:04 am by Eugene Volokh
Plaintiffs Southern Utah Drag Stars, LLC ("Drag Stars") and Mitski Avalōx ("Avalōx") seek their opportunity to speak in the public square through a community drag show which they say conveys messages of diversity, inclusion, and support for individuals with non-traditional gender expression and identities. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 12:04 pm by Ted Max
Grimaldi test was too permissive of “expressive works” that cause confusion.[8] Counsel for Jack Daniels advocated elimination of the Rogers v. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 11:54 am by Ted Max
Grimaldi test was too permissive of “expressive works” that cause confusion.[8] Counsel for Jack Daniels advocated elimination of the Rogers v. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 11:46 am by Ted Max
Grimaldi test was too permissive of “expressive works” that cause confusion.[8] Counsel for Jack Daniels advocated elimination of the Rogers v. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 2:26 pm by KJK
Expressing his enthusiasm for the GC Advantage program, Demetrius stated: “I get pretty excited when talking about GC Advantage. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 9:22 am by zola.support.team
The post New Jersey Pregnancy Accommodation appeared first on Castronovo & Mckinney, LLC. [read post]
14 Jun 2023, 9:05 pm by Bryn Hines
Melling points to the case of 303 Creative LLC v. [read post]
14 Jun 2023, 7:05 am by David Klein
In response to a petition filed by Capital One Services, LLC, the FCC wishes to also clarify that the confirmation text message may include a request for clarification as to the scope of the communication(s) that the recipient wishes to no longer receive. [read post]
11 Jun 2023, 11:00 pm
What made his claim interesting, though, was that Stewart asserted an “inherent compulsion” twist – noting that he was merely an employee of the rink, and that when he expressed his reservations to his supervisor that individual “dismissed his concerns and directed him to proceed with the practice. [read post]
11 Jun 2023, 6:09 pm by Dennis Crouch
Brunetti, the Federal Circuit’s decision was almost certainly correct.[4] Unlike the provisions at issue in those cases, which barred the registration of disparaging, immoral, and scandalous marks, section 1052(c) does not discriminate based on the viewpoint expressed; it bars registration of a famous person’s name whether the mark criticizes praises or is neutral about that person. [read post]