Search for: "Does 1 - 38" Results 41 - 60 of 4,896
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Dec 2019, 3:06 am
Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 72 USPQ2d 1833, 1838 (2004) (trademark law does not countenance someone obtaining “a complete monopoly on use of a descriptive term simply by grabbing it first”) (citation omitted); see also Clairol, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 3:00 pm
., November 1, 2011) (Second Appellate District), the California Court of Appeal held that an insured’s copying of another’s product does not constitute an "advertising injury" for which coverage is provided. [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 2:27 pm
  In the Q&A, I asked if and how the panelists measure the ROI of their marketing. [read post]
17 Sep 2008, 10:00 am
 Section 38(1) of Ontario’s Trustee Act states in part that “if death results from such injuries no damages shall be allowed for the death or for the loss of the expectation of life”. [read post]
8 May 2007, 7:44 pm
Further update: Workman was executed last night around 1:38 am. [read post]
11 Jan 2013, 6:39 am
How does Kelsen's positivism - hinged as it is upon the existence of a real act of will as necessary condition for the positivity of norms - fare with respect to the 'obviously' un-willed General Principles of Law (GPL) in Article 38(1)(c)? [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:00 pm by Bill Raftery
Ohio Measure 1 The track record for increases to judicial retirement ages in the last 20 years now stands as 4 wins to 3 losses as Ohio voters rejected Measure 1 Tuesday night. [read post]
25 Jul 2013, 10:33 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
The appellant loes in Ex parte SIMPSONPapesch is invoked:The Appellants’ claim 1 requires that the indium attachment layer is sufficiently strong to keep the cylindrical target sections attached to the cylindrical backing tube during a sputtering process, but does not exclude additional attachment means such as mechanical fasteners. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 9:27 am
Roy McGeady, PJMC (Bergen Vicinage), that explains how the newly revised Rule 1:38-1 et seq. has been organized. [read post]
29 May 2009, 6:35 am
They’ve never demoted a partner to nonequity status, never merged with a big firm to improve their “platform,” never boosted their partner-associate ratio beyond 1:1, and never laid off associates for economic reasons. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 5:01 am by James Edward Maule
Second, it argued that if a reduction in the compensation deduction were appropriate, the reduction should be the amount of the credit after application of section 38(c)(1) and not the gross amount of the credit before application of section 38(c)(1). [read post]