Search for: "US v. Farah"
Results 41 - 60
of 78
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Sep 2022, 11:38 am
” The case is Garcia, et al. v. [read post]
4 Oct 2008, 9:00 am
Brigano Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati 08a0583n.06 Farah v. [read post]
30 Sep 2007, 6:32 pm
Farah, Cancellation No. 92032341 [Section 2(d) Petition for cancellation of a registration for the mark OMIC PLUS for cosmetics and skin care products based upon Petitioner's alleged prior use of the mark OMIC for cosmetics and skin care products].October 24, 2007 - 2 PM: Bose Corp. v. [read post]
13 May 2014, 8:40 am
Back in November I discussed the case Farah v. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 2:33 pm
United States v. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 7:53 am
* Farah v. [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 3:27 am
” We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 4:02 am
Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2017, 8:41 am
Paolo Farah spoke to China’s One Belt One Road initiative and geopolitics in Eurasia. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 3:23 am
: Catnic Components Ltd & Anor v Hill and Smith Ltd (Spicy IP) United States US Patents BPAI rules for ex parte appeals: Request for comment and notice of roundtable (Patently-O) Bilski and Warsaw share insights (AwakenIP) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: False marking statute applies on a per article basis: Forest Group, Inc v Bon Tool Co (GRAY On Claims) (EPLAW) (Washington State Patent Law Blog) You say tomato... [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 3:50 am
In Hernandez v. [read post]
27 Jun 2022, 4:33 am
DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS Following the overturning of Roe v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 4:21 am
In Rucho v. [read post]
[Eugene Volokh] Libel Lawsuit Against Case Law Repository for Its Not Noting That a Case Had Settled
9 Feb 2023, 10:38 am
Thomas had been involved in Modarres v. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 9:00 am
Farah Mfg. [read post]
7 Sep 2017, 11:29 pm
It’s a game of two halves Four games into my local Man v. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 9:49 am
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided United States v. [read post]
22 Nov 2013, 7:30 am
Refusing to let a Muslim employee conduct prayers in a lobby used by other businesses, in the HR director’s office, or in a hallway, did not violate Title VII where the defendants offered to let him pray off-site each day as he already did on Fridays and his suggestions would cause undue hardship, found a federal district court in Kansas, granting summary judgment for the defendants (Farah v A-1 Careers, November 20, 2013, Crow, S). [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 9:07 am
” Afro-American Publ’g Co. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 9:07 am
” Afro-American Publ’g Co. v. [read post]
