Search for: "Shepherd v. May"
Results 41 - 60
of 369
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 May 2021, 1:38 am
– an experienced intervener) and Philip Shepherd QC, who appears before the UK Supreme Court regularly. [read post]
4 May 2021, 12:21 pm
It seeks compliance in a filing listed as "JW v DHS Biden dogs complaint 01194. [read post]
29 Apr 2021, 5:10 am
In the case of Shepherd v. [read post]
23 Feb 2021, 6:49 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 4:00 am
In Woodring v. [read post]
1 Feb 2021, 6:30 am
For the Symposium on Mary Ziegler, Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. [read post]
1 Feb 2021, 4:46 am
Three weeks ago, I wrote about the Bak v Rostek case in Brooklyn Supreme Court addressing the duty to disclose third-party offers amidst buy-out negotiations between co-owners. [read post]
8 Jan 2021, 12:30 pm
We refer of course to Courtney v. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 1:16 pm
Nor does it describe the NCD as the statutorily-required instigator of, or shepherd for, such processes. [read post]
4 Nov 2020, 9:02 pm
Supreme Court heard arguments in Fulton v. [read post]
28 Jul 2020, 10:25 am
Co. v Scottsdale Ins. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 11:19 am
In music it may be 3-4 notes. [read post]
6 Apr 2020, 10:09 am
In May of 2019, the archdiocese asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 10:35 am
Stern v. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 6:22 am
So while this post may be bad as ever, at least it’s authentic. [read post]
20 Feb 2020, 12:13 pm
” Shepherd v. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 12:32 am
Mr Enchev entered into a contract with Voltino in May 2017 (though the contents of the contract were not disclosed to the court) and was found to be the controlling mind of Big Horn UK Limited, also in charge of Big Horn UK’s social media accounts.After a rejection of Red Bull’s opposition to the Big Horn mark on 23 May 2018, Red Bull’s appeal was upheld and Voltino’s trade mark application was rejected in its entirety on 7 January 2019. [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 4:00 am
As Roncarelli v. [read post]
24 Jan 2020, 12:30 pm
This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Espinoza v. [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 9:19 am
Beauty Bay: the challenge of the judicial assessment of likelihood of confusion Beauty Bay and Dotcom Retail v Benefit Cosmetics [2019] EWHC 1150 (May 2019) Is the mark BEAUTY BAY infringed by the use of BEAUTY & THE BAY for identical goods – namely cosmetics and the retail thereof? [read post]
