Search for: "Sellers v. Sellers"
Results 5041 - 5060
of 6,088
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2010, 10:23 am
The decision in Laboy v. [read post]
3 Apr 2010, 3:30 pm
" (Polymer Tech Corp v Mimran (1992)). [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 9:32 am
The law required that eBay be held accountable for the words that it chose insofar as they misled or confused consumers, the court concluded.The April 1 opinion in Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. will be reported in CCH Advertising Law Guide. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 2:15 pm
TIffany sued eBay claiming that eBay was liable for trademark infringement and false advertising because sellers sold counterfeit merchandise on eBay's site. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 1:11 pm
When the issue is whether a seller can participate in the secondary market for the trademarked goods, we may need what Mark McKenna calls channeling doctrines (Dastar, for example) to prevent trademark owners from getting more than what trademark gives them. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 12:34 pm
Since eBay was aware that so many of the items offered by its sellers were counterfeit, even if it couldn't determine which ones were real and which ones weren't, its creation and purchase of links that directed consumers to "Tiffany" jewelry listings might be considered false advertising. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 4:03 pm
No tying arrangement existed because the defendants did not require dealers to include gap insurance products in the credit transactions the defendants purchased, or even to buy gap insurance products at all.The decision is Midwest Agency Services, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 9:42 am
* In re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, 2010 WL 760433 (N.D. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 2:44 pm
Weekly D320aContracts -- Real property sale -- Rescission of contract -- Violation of Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act by failing to deliver copy of property report to purchaser before she signed purchase contract -- Exemptions -- Developer of residential community was exempted from ILSA's disclosure requirements because language in purchase and sale contract extending construction completion period for delays caused by specified events or “any other similar causes not within… [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 1:09 pm
In the absence of any allegations of concerned activity between the hospitals' two DME providers, the only theory that could possibly support the claims was one based on shared monopoly, which was not recognized as a viable cause of action, the court explained.The decision—Precision CPAP, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 9:32 am
That is the holding in Almanza v. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 2:28 pm
Morrison v. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 5:53 am
In Dawson v. [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 11:30 pm
In Foley v. [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 6:20 pm
As noted in my last blog post, the California Supreme Court just reversed the appellate court decision in the case of Steiner v. [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 8:11 am
At the time the Debtors purchased the Vehicle, the Debtors had no conversation with the seller about Mr. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 9:22 am
Since the landmark Kelo v. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 5:52 am
See Nieto v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 5:54 am
However, in Gardner v. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 12:39 pm
Sklodowsky v. [read post]
