Search for: "State v. Coca"
Results 41 - 60
of 531
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2011, 4:00 am
The case of the day, Ingaseosas Int’l Co. v. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 3:30 am
Salo V. [read post]
10 Aug 2009, 2:40 am
Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 5:00 pm
United States v. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 3:00 pm
With the preemption argument out of the way, the next doctrinal problem for Coca-Cola was the Court’s recent decision in Wyeth v. [read post]
10 Jul 2018, 7:50 am
The Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision last week in Enslin v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 3:21 pm
On Monday the Court will hear argument in DePierre v. [read post]
23 Oct 2006, 8:08 am
The first case, Coca-Cola Co. v. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 7:31 am
Lanham Act (a very interesting decision that I finally got around to reading this morning – see: POM Wonderful LLC v. [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 9:09 am
In 1881, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Egbert v. [read post]
14 Jun 2018, 4:39 am
Descarga el documento: United States of America v. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 3:26 am
” See Pom v. [read post]
8 Mar 2007, 11:14 pm
Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 1:41 pm
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 11:03 am
The CJEU stated that European Union law does not preclude the proprietor of a national trademark from opposing the import of identical goods bearing the same trade mark and coming from another Member State, in which said trade mark, which initially belonged to the same proprietor, is currently owned by a third party. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 1:34 pm
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. [read post]
3 Nov 2014, 9:48 am
Coca-Cola sought dismissal of POM’s Lanhan Act and state law claims on the grounds that because its labeling complied with the requirement of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), POM’s claims were precluded. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 2:15 am
The orders may also provide you with a useful starting point for discovery requests: Coca-Cola Company v Pepsico Inc [2011] FCA 1069 [read post]
8 May 2023, 6:11 am
” “Galderma had asked V&E to withdraw, but it refused, citing a conflicts waiver that was part of the engagement letter Galderma had signed. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 5:02 am
Of course, 'the court and its personnel' are usually allowed recipients but that phrase does not mean 'the court, its personnel, and the public.' Otherwise, the recipe for Coca-Cola or any other highly private information could be blurted out in open court. [read post]
