Search for: "forever 21 Inc" Results 41 - 60 of 167
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Oct 2018, 8:00 am by Adam Faderewski
It only takes a few hours and you can change someone’s life forever. [read post]
4 Aug 2018, 6:31 am by Nassiri Law
California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing has ruled against Forever 21 Retail, Inc. as a result of the company’s alleged policy forbidding language other than English. [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 8:14 am by MBettman
While there is some question about whether the 21 year period began to run in 1987 or 1989, the issue germane to this appeal is whether the landowners can prove exclusivity for the requisite 21 year period. [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 8:51 am by John Elwood
If you think this post has gone on forever, you haven’t seen anything. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 3:29 am by Peter Mahler
Defendant on Both Sides of Cash-Out Merger Fails to Win Dismissal of Minority Shareholder Suit Alleging Inadequate Consideration  RAL Capital Ltd. v CheckM8, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 32000(U) [Sup Ct NY County Sept. 21, 2017]. [read post]
22 Dec 2017, 6:10 am
Forever 21, Inc.: Puma’s “Fenty” Slides May Not Have the Traction for the Uphill Battle Against Forever 21Jessica Cohen-NowakCommentary: Cartwheeling Through Copyright Law: Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2017, 6:35 am by Jonathan Bailey
The fashion world is plagued with it; the popular chain Forever 21 has been sued more than 50 times for its knock-offs of famous designer clothing. [read post]
4 Nov 2016, 3:33 am
In re Forever 21, Inc., Serial No. 86678161 (November 2, 2016) [not precedential].Applicant submitted website printouts showing how its mark is "actually used" and that it is "in conformance with marketplace convention for style names. [read post]
2 Sep 2016, 6:00 am by Jonathan Bailey
According to the lawsuit, Forever 21 ordered a dress from Brandy Melville that used an identical fabric print to one sold and owned by Forever 21. [read post]
29 Aug 2016, 9:51 am by Jeffrey D. Polsky
Forever 21, Inc., decided by the California Supreme Court in March 2016, dismiss that requirement. [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 4:11 pm by Craig Toncic
Bank Clothiers, Inc., Forever 21 Inc., Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, LLC, J.C. [read post]