Search for: "State v. Good Bear"
Results 4781 - 4800
of 5,195
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Mar 2009, 6:37 am
Thomas' dissent in Altria Group v. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 12:02 pm
A little more than a year ago, back in February 2008, a majority of the Supreme Court stated, in Riegel v. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 6:53 pm
That was when NFL Properties was allowing various companies the right to produce goods bearing their trademarked imagery. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 1:39 pm
Skidmore v. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 12:01 pm
In the other case, however, Martinez v. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 4:38 am
R(Ahmad) v LB Newham [2009] UKHL 14 is now available and the Lords have done a pretty good job at destroying the jurisprudence built up by the High Court and Court of Appeal in Part 6 cases. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 11:16 pm
The latter ruling was presaged earlier in the term by Philip Morris v. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 1:58 am
Many of these lawsuits were filed in state court. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 6:23 pm
Supreme Court handed down its opinion in United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 2:34 pm
Ch. 1996) and Graham v. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 1:20 pm
Golaiy remain good law. [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 5:04 am
Id. at *15.So that left medical monitoring, and that's where things go off the rails.Plaintiffs had some good facts. [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 5:00 am
(Spicy IP) Copyright in characters – III – Delhi High Court decision in Raja Pocket Books v Radha Pocket Books (Spicy IP) Kenya Anti-Counterfeit Bill 2008 passed (Afro-IP) Kenya’s new anti-counterfeit legislation discussion (Afro-IP) Kuwait Kuwait adopts international classes 42-45 (Kuwaitmark) Macedonia New Industrial Property Law (Class 46) Nigeria Court moves from Uyo to continue proceedings in New York in… [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 8:02 am
Justice Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. [read post]
15 Feb 2009, 1:16 pm
One example emerged in the hearings during Kitzmiller v. [read post]
11 Feb 2009, 4:17 am
Johnson v. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 7:40 am
So far so good. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 6:39 am
Council Directive 89/104 ... must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark is not entitled to prohibit use by a third party in comparative advertising of a sign that is identical with that mark for goods or services which are identical with those for which the mark is registered where such use does not affect or is not liable to affect the mark's essential function of providing a guarantee of origin or any of the mark's other functions and that is the case… [read post]
9 Feb 2009, 11:19 pm
The case is titled Coach, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2009, 3:45 am
State v. [read post]
