Search for: "State v. Mark" Results 461 - 480 of 21,489
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Aug 2012, 12:57 am by war
Mediaquest Communications LLC v Registrar of Trade Marks [2012] FCA 768 At the moment, as a result of Emmett J’s decision, Mr Brailsford is shown as the owner, but (presumably) Mr McInnes’ firm is shown as the address for service. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 8:20 am by The Docket Navigator
Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), because a False Marking qui tam relator is not an inferior officer of the government, but rather, is an assignee of a revocable interest of the United States. [read post]
28 Oct 2007, 7:33 pm
/NOTICE OF FILINGCOMES NOW the State of Florida, and files the following:1.Berry v. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 4:14 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
In New Breed of Patent Claim Bedevils Product Makers , DIONNE SEARCEY covered aspects of the false patent marking issue found in the Federal Circuit case Stauffer v. [read post]
20 Oct 2009, 9:04 am
For publication opinions Oct. 19 (1): In State of Indiana v. [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 11:57 am by a.burchfield@csuohio.edu
On Friday, November 13th, join judges, prosecutors, and attorneys as they convene to mark the 50th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in the landmark case of Sheppard v. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 1:21 pm by DMLP Staff
MoveOn.org also argued that its use of a modified version of the service mark was strongly protected because it was an expressive use for non-commercial purposes and that the service mark belonged to the State of Louisiana, which was the target of the parodic use. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 7:35 am
NVidia v Hardware Labs [2016] EWHC 3135(December 2016)This was the exam question posed here. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 10:03 am by Joel R. Brandes
In Smedley v Smedley, --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 5647426 (C.A.4 (N.C.)) the Smedleys married in 2000 in Germany, where Mark was stationed as a member of the United States Army. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 5:00 am by Andrew Woods
Litigation relating to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) insider trading case against Mark Cuban (“Cuban”) continues. [read post]
16 May 2014, 1:23 pm by lennyesq
(thetakeaway.org) Events to mark 60 years since Topeka’s Brown v. [read post]