Search for: "Strauss v. Strauss"
Results 421 - 440
of 618
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Aug 2010, 5:30 am
Connecticut v. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 12:37 am
Case: Halstead v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 9:34 pm
Goldstein of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and the author of the ABA's amicus brief; and... [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 8:25 am
Tushnet.CALL #: KF 3941 .T872 2007AUTHOR: Strauss, David A.TITLE: The living constitution / David A. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 3:55 pm
Schwarzenegger v. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 7:00 am
Apparently, Wal-Mart hired Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld to analyze... [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
Strauss, W. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 9:55 pm
The May/June issue of World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) from Newton Media leads with an interview with Levi Strauss chief IP counsel Tom Onda on that company's IP management. [read post]
27 May 2010, 5:38 am
The case is Levi Strauss & Co. v. [read post]
26 May 2010, 7:35 pm
At issue in McDonald v. [read post]
24 May 2010, 4:01 pm
” The case is Levi Strauss & Co. v. [read post]
20 May 2010, 6:37 pm
But it was successful on appeal to the Full Court (E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCAFC 27).By cross-claim in the Federal Court, Lion Nathan applied to have the registered trade mark removed from the register on the grounds of non-use from 7 May 2004 to 8 May 2007.The Full Court upheld the primary judge's finding that Lion Nathan's non-use application was made out and that Gallo's trademark should be removed from the register. [read post]
20 May 2010, 7:30 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in Joblove v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 11:13 pm
As affirmed by Gummow J in Wingate Marketing Pty Ltd v Levi Strauss & Co[30], “whilst a trade mark remains on goods, it functions as an indicator of the person who attached or authorised the initial use of the mark”. [read post]
18 May 2010, 7:46 pm
In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
18 May 2010, 8:46 am
Since at least Bobbs-Merrill v. [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 10:40 am
Ann Warren at the Post Chronicle previews Snyder v. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 10:44 am
Click Here American Trucking Association et al. v. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 9:03 am
The California Supreme Court swiftly followed suit in Strauss v Horton, upholding the passage of Proposition 8, but applying that referendum prospectively, thereby preserving the approximately 18,000 marriages that had been performed prior to the passage of the referendum; and perhaps unwittingly creating an arbitrary class of persons to which other gays can point in an equal protection analysis. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 8:52 am
The California Supreme Court swiftly followed suit in Strauss v Horton, upholding the passage of Proposition 8, but applying that referendum prospectively, thereby preserving the approximately 18,000 marriages that had been performed prior to the passage of the referendum; and perhaps unwittingly creating an arbitrary class of persons to which other gays can point in an equal protection analysis. [read post]
