Search for: "BULL V US"
Results 441 - 460
of 2,297
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2014, 7:30 am
At the top of the package, the term "SNOWTIME" appears in a blue that is darker than the lighter blues used elsewhere in the label. [read post]
26 Nov 2005, 12:52 pm
There's a lot of reaction to the Supreme Court of Florida decision to sanction lawyers for their use of Pit Bulls in their advertisements, and it ranges from critical to scathing. [read post]
28 Nov 2012, 6:42 am
As the Panel noted, copyright owners should not be ‘‘forced to allow extensive use of their property with little or no compensation. [read post]
9 May 2014, 10:56 am
§1125• Count V [sic]: Unfair Competition Under Indiana State Law• Count VI: Civil Action Under the Indiana Crime Victims ActBest Chairs ask for injunctive relief; damages, including treble damages; costs, including attorneys' fees; an order directing the destruction or alteration of all materials found to infringe Best Chairs' intellectual property; and interest, including prejudgment interest. [read post]
3 Nov 2006, 12:26 pm
In making that determination, is it consistent with United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 1:24 pm
Regards, Roy] Walmart v. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 10:12 am
•And speaking of using ERISA for class action litigation, one of the central questions with regard to the increasing use of that statute to press stock drop litigation and its cousin, excessive fee litigation, has long been whether it is a successful tactic. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 5:49 pm
On Monday, the California Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision in Hernandez v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 3:58 pm
Here are 5 reasons why an officer may decide to conduct a blood test over a breath test: • Breath Test Refusal by the suspect: • Suspect is not a good candidate; • Breathalyzer machine non calibrated or in need of repair; • Police Suspect a motorist is under the influence of chemical or drugs; • Initial Portable Breathalyzer Test (PBT) was negative for alcohol. [read post]
11 Dec 2011, 6:27 am
Case links: • N-MCCA opinion • Appellant’s brief • Appellee’s (government) brief • Blog post: Argument preview Followed by: United States v. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 2:00 am
Potts v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 6:54 am
This conclusion – which looks to us to make new law – draws on comments made by the Advocate General in Case C‑119/10 Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH (see para 56) and perhaps on the principles enunciated in transit cases (such as Joined Cases C‑446/09 and C‑495/09), even though this case had nothing to with goods in transit through the EU.Not if there is a risk that the cigerettz will be put on the market in the EU even… [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 11:25 am
• Count II: Common Law Trademark Infringement• Count III: Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Advantage and/or Intentional Interference with Business Relationships• Count IV: Unfair Competition• Count V: Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs seek damages, including compensatory and punitive damages; statutory and/or liquidated damages under 15 U.S.C. [read post]
25 Aug 2021, 8:54 am
ImPACT Applications, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Dec 2016, 7:44 am
Smith and State v. [read post]
10 Mar 2022, 9:43 am
In Eggleston v. [read post]
22 Jul 2023, 7:51 am
Guantanamo Biden Must Act on Landmark UN Special Rapporteur Guantanamo Report by Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) Cyber Bugs in the Software Liability Debate by Chinmayi Sharma and John Speed Meyers Social Media Content Regulation / First Amendment Missouri v. [read post]
8 Nov 2013, 9:53 am
This federal agency uses a 20-factor test. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 7:22 am
Silvers v. [read post]
