Search for: "US v. Levelle Grant"
Results 5461 - 5480
of 9,108
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Feb 2014, 2:54 pm
A Swiss Del Monte entity that had a license to use the “DEL MONTE” mark applies to operate the .delmonte generic top level domain (gTLD). [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 3:06 am
” Thus, as with the other levels of the waterfall, the Promote kicks in when the threshold of the prior level (Section 6.1 (a)(ii)) is satisfied. [read post]
9 Feb 2014, 12:15 pm
The plaintiffs’ claims included breaches of the fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and good faith due to: (I) a fatally flawed sales process; (II) unreasonable deal protection measures; (III) using the merger to extract certain benefits for itself; (IV) issuing materially misleading proxy materials; and (V) aiding and abetting by the Buyout Group. [read post]
8 Feb 2014, 10:36 am
AF v. [read post]
8 Feb 2014, 10:10 am
Cook v. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 8:04 am
That court granted Rolex’s claim.Blomqvist appealed to the Højesteret, which wondered whether,on the facts, any IP right had been infringed in Denmark. [read post]
5 Feb 2014, 7:58 am
If the Court were to take up petitioners’ Hail Mary invitation to roam beyond the narrowly cabined question presented in the cert. grant, and reconsider Massachusetts v. [read post]
5 Feb 2014, 6:16 am
Alston v. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm
In Jensen v. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 9:56 am
In PhoneDog v. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 9:28 am
The Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 8:54 am
14 In Eldred v. [read post]
1 Feb 2014, 6:55 am
And Wells linked to a District Court ruling in United States v. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 1:31 am
On another level entirely, what about the commercial value of a sponsorship or endorsement from Mayor Boris Johnson: how might this be affected.Merpel's attention was completely elsewhere: she was contemplating the star symbol which Stonewall uses as a logo, which reminded her strongly of the star used by Danish-based pharmaceutical company Lundbeck. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 9:52 am
Next, Midcal gives us a two-part test for lower-level actors: (1) the anticompetitive policy must be clearly articulated by the state and (2) the state must actively supervise the implementation of the anticompetitive policy. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 3:13 am
Briefs: CW v WARF – 20140117 – US Standing Brief (ECF) CW v WARF – 20140127 – Response to US by CW CW v WARF – 20140127 – Response to US by WARF (ECF) [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 3:36 pm
Those formulations pitch the question at far too broad a level of generality. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 1:37 pm
§ 2X1.1 Background The defendant fastens on the phrase "about to complete" in the guideline to contest the judge's refusal to grant him the three-level discount. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 1:20 am
Co. v Chi. [read post]
