Search for: "State v. Fanning"
Results 421 - 440
of 2,612
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2020, 11:24 am
It was the first fan fiction case in China, in which the legal status of unlicensed fan work was tested in court.Here’s what Xi writes: Unconstraint state of mind (?) [read post]
29 Jul 2020, 9:55 am
Case citation: Court of Master Sommeliers v. [read post]
27 Jul 2020, 3:05 am
I also stated that I would use ‘regressive’ in a neutral fashion: what I mean by this adjective is that the AG Opinion appears to hold a critical view of how the CJEU has progressively construed the right of communication to the public over the past several years (the AG seems to think that things began going wrong as early as SGAE in 2006, that is the first CJEU decision in the right of communication to the public …) and invites the CJEU to take a step back and… [read post]
25 Jul 2020, 9:08 am
Cites to FAN v. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 8:52 am
Patent and Trademark Office[1] culminated in Pro-Football, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jul 2020, 10:17 am
In Matal v. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 6:02 pm
But courts do the interpreting under the court order standard, so diversity of state laws is not the issue.) [read post]
14 Jul 2020, 4:58 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 1:30 pm
I think it would require this “state-specific v. general competence” question to be addressed. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 7:37 am
§ 125.18(b)(2)(v). [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 5:01 am
As readers of MauledAgain know, I am not a fan of tax breaks. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 5:00 pm
I’m no fan of Black Lives Matter. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 9:01 pm
” It will be: “I didn’t lose, no matter what the evil press and the deep-state conspiracy says. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE City of Oakland v. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 3:57 am
Notably, they left out federal actors, which was later extended by the Supreme Court in Bivens v. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 9:01 pm
United States, and United States v. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 3:57 pm
Ditto for NFIB v. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 2:43 pm
[The decision in Bostock v. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 5:27 am
"We've been requesting that fans respect the anthem. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 4:12 am
Heasley).Non-ownership: Opposer claimed that the mark was used in the United States not by Applicant Fan, but by JY Instyle, a California corporation, and therefore that JY Insyle owned the mark, not Fan. [read post]
