Search for: "Label v Label"
Results 5641 - 5660
of 13,305
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Nov 2018, 3:25 am
The absence of the claimed indication from the label ("skinny label"), the judge suggested, could not "conceivably be sufficient to negative the intention". [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 1:34 pm
In Muzichuck v. [read post]
19 Jan 2023, 11:16 am
” Big Tech v. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 1:57 am
Per Golden v. [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 8:08 pm
But the general rule is that to incorporate music into an advertisement, one needs a license from the owner of both the sound recording (the record label), and the musical composition (the music publisher) -- which Farmer's letter certainly suggests the campaign lacked. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 10:51 am
God forbid we should have that label attached. [read post]
12 Oct 2012, 3:23 am
Court of Appeals dealt with a twist on the bolstering issue in Andre Mason v. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 4:54 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 4:04 pm
See Appellant’s Br., Norman v. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 6:52 am
In Cavazos v. [read post]
24 Jul 2009, 7:03 am
In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 10:43 am
John Fund, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 8:55 am
Wisconsin Label Corp. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 9:08 am
In re: Fosamax Products Liability Litigation (Secrest v. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 12:44 am
Initially the Federal Court granted only a narrow injunction, limited to use of pregabalin for the treatment of neuropathic pain, which reflected the product’s label. [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 1:27 pm
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which held that the toy was protected under the reasoning of Rogers v. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 3:02 am
In McDaniel v. [read post]
26 May 2022, 8:47 am
Del. 2007); Zhang v. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 7:51 am
”Ashcroft v. [read post]
12 Jul 2022, 9:58 pm
In Dickerson v. [read post]
