Search for: "PER-CO LTD"
Results 541 - 560
of 1,123
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Dec 2017, 5:01 am
Research in Motion Ltd. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 12:34 pm
Limitation periods start when a Plaintiff has, or ought to have, discovered, a viable cause of action for any head of damage. [read post]
16 Nov 2018, 8:24 am
Co., 211 S.W.3d 310, 313–14 (Tex. 2006) (quoting Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2010, 12:42 am
Ltd vs. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 8:03 am
After all, the former Electronic Arts executive just sold his newbie iPhone development company to Japanese social gaming publisher DeNa Co., Ltd. for an earth shattering, body-slamming $403 million dollars. [read post]
4 Apr 2008, 1:00 am
- Counterfeit cash flooding the market: (Afro-IP), Debranded fakes for Liberia: an update: (Afro-IP), South African music industry blames pirates for falling sales of local artists: (Afro-IP), Plaintiff obtains interlocutory relief in patent case Sanitam Services Limited v Bins (Nairobi) Services Limited: (Afro-IP), South Africa – new patent judgments: Buckman Laboratories v Bromine Compounds; Northpark Trading 3 (Pty) Ltd v Ausplow (Pty) Ltd: (Afro-IP) … [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 5:58 am
Other roles which have come under criticism from the Taxpayer's Alliance include trampoline coaches, skate park attendants, flower arrangers, a 'befriending co-ordinator'; and a 'street football co-ordinator', which pays £19,000-a-year. [read post]
19 Sep 2010, 10:39 pm
Wells Fargo & Co. et al. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 1:42 pm
—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 1:42 pm
—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). [read post]
11 Jan 2008, 9:00 am
China ought to have known were pirated: (IAM),IFPI v Yahoo judgment - Uncertainty is bad for business: (Experience Not Logic),Court grants ‘well-known' status to B&Q's Chinese trade mark: (Rouse & Co. [read post]
10 May 2010, 1:46 pm
Co. v. [read post]
14 Nov 2006, 4:31 am
Per Achtman v. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 7:43 am
In Hunter Engineering Co. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 8:52 am
So, as per SBP v. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 2:09 pm
Provisionally the Kat thinks that there is no challenge per se under (i), since prior use is not a ground on which a CTM can be nullified unless it establishes that the mark is non-distinctive, descriptive or suffers from some other defect which would prevent the relevant consumer from associating it with the owner's goods or services. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 12:37 pm
Monsanto Co. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2018, 10:04 am
Monsanto Co. v. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 10:42 am
Since that time, Warner/Chappell has been collecting a reported $2 million per year in royalties on the lyrics. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 10:42 am
Since that time, Warner/Chappell has been collecting a reported $2 million per year in royalties on the lyrics. [read post]
