Search for: "J & B Importers, Inc." Results 41 - 60 of 1,259
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jul 2014, 10:58 am
§ 271(e)(4)(B), FTUG and its agents be permanently enjoined from making, using, selling or offering to sell either or both of the FTUG Products within the United States, or importing either or both of the FTUG Products into the United States prior to the expiration of the '703 and '325 patents;D. [read post]
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Langan, a Connecticut resident, sued J&J for violating the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), alleging that two Aveeno Baby washes were deceptively marketed as containing “natural oat formula” when they allegedly only contained 1% natural ingredients. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 9:35 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Oxmaster, Inc., 2010 WL 5257226, at *3–4 (E.D.Pa. 2010 Pratter, J .) and Durkot v. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 3:26 pm by Eric Schweibenz
The Complainant in this investigation is Humanscale Corporation and the Respondents are CompX International, Inc. and Waterloo Furniture Corporation Ltd. d/b/a CompX Waterloo. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 3:06 pm
Accordingly, Arnold J was able to find no infringement under Article 5(1)(b), or under Article 5(2); that the defendant had a good defence of descriptive use under Art 6(1)(b) and there was no passing off. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 10:28 am
Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.; Glenmark Generics Inc., USA; Glenmark Generics Ltd.; Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Hetero USA Inc.; Hetero Labs Limited; Hetero Labs Limited Unit V; Hetero Drugs Ltd.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Mylan Inc.; Mylan Laboratories Limited; Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.; Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Sun Pharma Global FZE; Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.; Sun Pharma Global Inc.; Sun… [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
The Court of Appeal decision in Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311(27 March 2015) (Dyson MR and Sharp LJ in a joint judgment; McFarlane LJ concurring), affirming the judgment of Tugendhat J (at[2014] EWHC 13 (QB) (16 January 2014)), is a very important decision on damages for invasion of privacy, and it raises significant questions about the correctness of Feeney J’s reasoning in the earlier Irish case of Collins v FBD Insurance plc [2013] IEHC 137… [read post]