Search for: "US v. Jordan"
Results 561 - 580
of 1,386
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Mar 2024, 6:27 am
Jordan, 282 N.C. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 3:48 am
(Contra the absurd claim made by David Segal’s infamous NYT piece denigrating the teaching of such old cases as Hadley v. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 11:17 am
(relisted after the May 9 and May 16 conferences; now held) Jordan v. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 12:28 am
In Behrend v. [read post]
18 Jun 2017, 4:00 am
Criminal Law: Doubling-down on Jordan R. [read post]
3 Jan 2023, 4:00 am
In Adams v. [read post]
19 Jul 2007, 3:19 pm
Jordan, 2007 U.S. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 4:10 am
The first is Cyan v. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 4:23 am
’” Briefly: At Bloomberg BNA, Jordan Rubin looks at four amicus briefs filed in support of the government in Carpenter v. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 4:41 pm
In the late 1990s, Qiaodan Sports filed for trade mark registrations covering the Chinese character and Romanised pinyin transliterations of Jordan, being 乔丹 and QIAODAN for use in connection with its sports stores. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 4:41 pm
In the late 1990s, Qiaodan Sports filed for trade mark registrations covering the Chinese character and Romanised pinyin transliterations of Jordan, being 乔丹 and QIAODAN for use in connection with its sports stores. [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 4:02 am
(TTABlog) US Trade Marks – Decisions District Court E D California: Court finds logo either protected as parody or not likely to cause confusion: Protectmarriage.com - Yes on 8 v. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 7:48 am
Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 (CanLII), [2016] 1 SCR 631 R. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 9:02 am
Menotte, Trustee v. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 1:04 am
Texas v. [read post]
22 Nov 2017, 4:03 am
” At Bloomberg BNA, Jordan Rubin looks at the cert petition in Hidalgo v. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 4:04 am
We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. [read post]
8 Jan 2019, 3:57 am
The first is Herrera v. [read post]
25 Sep 2020, 12:30 pm
Jordan v. [read post]
31 Mar 2018, 8:30 am
Kat friend Simon Klopschinski, of rospatt osten pross, provides an in-depth analysis of a recent IP related arbitration case in the US, in which trademarks and licenses were sufficient to constitute an “investment” under Article 25 of the ICSID Convention: Bridgestone v. [read post]
