Search for: "State v. Holderness"
Results 501 - 520
of 8,204
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Oct 2022, 11:38 am
§ 1189 rests with the Secretary of State and is subject to [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 6:09 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2022, 2:24 pm
From Hardaway v. [read post]
19 Oct 2022, 1:33 am
Take IP Bridge v. [read post]
13 Oct 2022, 9:22 pm
However, the ECJ in Phoenix v. [read post]
13 Oct 2022, 1:19 pm
But TPS holders fought back and won relief from the courts in 2018 in Ramos v. [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 10:37 pm
On page 3, that one specifically points to the Mannheim Regional Court's Nokia v. [read post]
11 Oct 2022, 1:01 am
1547: The Advocate General continues by stating that as part of that structure, only specified office holders can refer (see s33(1)). [read post]
10 Oct 2022, 8:13 pm
Other patent holders than Nokia will be watching those developments with concern.After those first four German injunctions, the Dusseldorf Regional Court stayed two Nokia v. [read post]
10 Oct 2022, 5:01 am
In 2012, Attorney General Holder issued a statement (Holder Memo) outlining the DOJ’s policy on coordinating parallel civil and criminal proceedings to enforce against fraud. [read post]
9 Oct 2022, 11:11 pm
After the Epic Games v. [read post]
7 Oct 2022, 8:02 am
In Lucent v. [read post]
7 Oct 2022, 5:09 am
The justices were hearing Merrill v. [read post]
6 Oct 2022, 9:59 am
Antonyuk v. [read post]
6 Oct 2022, 9:15 am
Copyright holders have long ignored these potential infringements for a range of economic and public relations reasons. [read post]
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Vincent de Fontbrune v. Alan Wofsy, Docket No. 19-16913
5 Oct 2022, 3:00 am
Holder, 565 U.S. 302, 327–28 (2012). [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 6:53 pm
United States, and the retired justice remains stone-faced with each one. [read post]
30 Sep 2022, 1:33 pm
Holder in 2013. [read post]
26 Sep 2022, 6:19 am
The court, reversing the injunction and ruling against the trademark holder, found that the RISE label was a weak trademark because it strongly suggested the qualities of the product it labeled and there was extensive third-party usage of the same or similar marks (RiseandShine Corp. v. [read post]
26 Sep 2022, 5:31 am
Since our client resided in Havertown, PA, his application had a better chance compared to states under the 9th Circuit (see Momeni v. [read post]
