Search for: "Humphrey v. USA"
Results 41 - 60
of 76
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Dec 2018, 1:04 am
The Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s determination that Laerdal failed to plead its trade dress claims with adequate detail, vacated the ITC’s decision that no relief was warranted, and remanded to the ITC to determine the appropriate remedy after consideration of public interest concerns (Laerdal Medical Corp. v. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 2:31 am
Fields Famous Brands, LLC v. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 1:00 am
The court remanded trademark infringement and other claims brought by dietary supplement seller Charles Curry to the federal district court in Chicago for further proceedings (Curry v. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 11:15 pm
SAS Institute Inc. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 11:57 pm
., SpA v. [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 2:01 am
The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment order dismissing all of the corporation’s claims arising out of what the corporation contended was political retribution exacted by the mayor against it (Comite Fiestas De La Calle San Sebastian, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 1:00 am
More from our authors: Mediation: Creating Value in International Intellectual Property Disputes by Théophile Margellos, Sophia Bonne, Gordon Humphreys, Sven Stürmann € Design Rights, Functionality and Scope of Protection by Chris Carani€ 199 [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 6:12 am
More from our authors: Mediation: Creating Value in International Intellectual Property Disputes by Théophile Margellos, Sophia Bonne, Gordon Humphreys, Sven Stürmann € Design Rights, Functionality and Scope of Protection by Chris Carani€ 199 [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 12:01 am
-USA" Robinson v. [read post]
23 Feb 2007, 1:53 am
Humphrey, that you cannot sue related to an unlawful conviction or imprisonment until your conviction is overturned or dismissed.In Philip Morris USA v. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 12:56 am
Accordingly, the appellate court vacated the preliminary injunction to the extent that it enjoined the sale of products that the mark owner chose not to buy back, and it remanded the case for reexamination of which product lines were covered by the injunction (Really Good Stuff, LLC v. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 4:17 am
The court also affirmed a district judge’s order sanctioning L&L for failing to disclose its third-party license agreement in discovery (Beach Mart, Inc. v. [read post]
11 May 2020, 7:53 am
An award of over $212,000 in nontaxable costs for expert witness expenses was, however, vacated, because there was no statutory basis for awarding those costs (San Diego Comic Convention v. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 4:09 am
& Sons Edible Oils Ltd. v. [read post]
28 May 2019, 4:07 am
In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying ACT’s request for a permanent injunction because ACT failed to establish that it would sustain irreparable harm (ACT 898 Products, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 3:32 am
The Eleventh Circuit agreed with that conclusion based on the plain language of the licensing agreement and affirmed the lower court’s decision (Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 4:56 am
(CAI), was affirmed (Flexible Steel Lacing Co. v. [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 1:34 am
Consequently, the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to allow it to reconsider this award (4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. [read post]
20 Aug 2008, 10:31 pm
Ky. 2007). 08a0292p.06 2008/08/14 USA v. [read post]
9 Nov 2007, 10:42 am
[5] Humphrey v. [read post]
