Search for: "United States v. Blizzard"
Results 41 - 60
of 136
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jun 2023, 1:24 am
First, FTC v. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 10:25 am
Yogubliz filed the action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that its BLIZZBERRY and BLIZZ FROZEN YOGURT marks did not infringe DQ’s BLIZZARD marks. [read post]
18 Jul 2008, 1:09 pm
The United Stated District Court of Arizona has just decided on the case of Blizzard Entertainment v MDY, and it's a doozy. [read post]
15 May 2017, 10:28 am
" United States v. [read post]
28 Sep 2020, 7:36 pm
United States v. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 7:34 am
” It likewise uses “names and insignia of contemporary forces such as the National Security Agency, the United States Marine Corps, and the United States Air Force. [read post]
26 Apr 2023, 9:47 pm
In 2011, a unanimous Supreme Court held in American Electric Power Co. v. [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 10:13 am
United States, No. 18-1851 C (Ct. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 2:14 pm
Brennan of the United States Supreme Court stated in Furman v. [read post]
27 May 2023, 12:23 pm
Optis v. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 2:36 pm
United States limits the application of the third-party doctrine, holding that a warrant is required when an individual “has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party. [read post]
6 Oct 2022, 12:51 am
There are three paragraphs that stress the "central objective of CADE's efforts" ("o objetivo central da atuação do Cade"), which is that of every competition authority in the civilized world: to protect, in the interest of consumer welfare, the competitive process ("concorrência") (as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also emphasized in its FTC v. [read post]
9 Dec 2022, 3:10 am
The claim about "more mature content for more serious gaming" is something that with my games industry background (once the first person to work for Blizzard outside the United States) and my own experience playing games I have to reject: it's just not true that mature content implies or fosters serious gaming. [read post]
17 Jun 2023, 6:25 am
Right before the midnight Pacific Time deadline, Microsoft and Activision Blizzard filed their (joint) opposition to the Federal Trade Commission's motion for a preliminary injunction: Federal Trade Commission v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 6:16 am
Blizzard, 521 F.Supp.2d 1140, 1152 (E.D.Wash.2007). [read post]
11 Jan 2023, 1:54 pm
While FTC v. [read post]
19 Nov 2019, 11:29 am
Co. v. [read post]
10 May 2011, 9:23 am
Barnes, the United States Supreme Court held that briefing every conceivable issue is not only not required, it is not good advocacy. [read post]
14 Jul 2023, 1:22 pm
Here the District Court–– citing the well-known AT&T acquisition of TimeWarner in 2018 (See United States v. [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 2:13 pm
The FTC and DOJ's guiding principle these days--including this month's new United States et al. v. [read post]
