Search for: "Label v Label"
Results 5021 - 5040
of 13,304
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Sep 2015, 1:06 pm
So, we were preparing a post for today on Sparks v. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 9:35 am
As these histories demonstrate, some individuals are labeled as sex offender s for crimes that don’t necessarily indicate they are a persistent danger to the public. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 9:01 pm
In an early case, Willingham v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 2:10 pm
Oil and gas service giant Halliburton, has agreed to pay $18,293,557 to 1,016 employees nationwide to settle charges by the U.S. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 3:00 am
Wallace v Conagra Foods Inc., 2014 WL 1356860 (8th Cir. [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 1:21 pm
Robert Bone – Notice Failure and Defenses in Trademark Law Bone’s basic argument: Principal notice issue in TM is uncertainty about scope, and principal problem is chilling effects. [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 12:50 pm
Autogiro v. [read post]
25 Sep 2015, 1:17 pm
Chiang: I agree that labels matter. [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 6:51 am
“Label” vs. intent. [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 5:42 am
This changed in 1977 with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bates v. [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 5:24 am
Thus, it was impossible for the Manufacturers to comply with both their state-law duty to change the label and their federal law duty to keep the label the same. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 9:44 am
Mary’s Inc. v. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 5:43 am
Something like what we want – a rigorous, disciplined approach to warning adequacy – happened in Becker v. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 12:40 pm
The Sixth Circuit held that similar to Wright v. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 12:08 pm
The gravamen of the complaint is that defendants knowingly and “falsely” label beverage containers sold both inside and outside California with “CA CRV,” “California Redemption Value,” or similar labels when, in fact, under California law, only containers purchased inside California may be redeemed in California. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 6:37 am
See Orr v. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 4:22 am
Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 12:27 pm
In Kroger Company v. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 11:09 am
After receiving the complaint and knowing that it did not sell its rings through Costco, Tiffany launched an investigation revealing that the Huntington Beach Costco was in fact displaying diamond engagement rings in a case labeled with the word Tiffany. [read post]
