Search for: "Coates v. Coates" Results 581 - 600 of 1,382
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Mar 2022, 2:56 pm by Eugene Volokh
The cautious spectators silently huddled in their coats, And some woman with a distorted face Kissed the dead man on his blue lips And threw her wedding ring at the priest. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 10:00 pm by Stephanie Figueroa
Patent No. 8,092,876 entitled COATING COMPOSITIONS FOR CANS AND METHODS OF COATING and owned by Valspar Sourcing. [read post]
20 Sep 2016, 2:11 pm
 All you've done is to come off like a jerk yourself.So you're inclined to sugar-coat your review. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 7:09 am
 The trial court dismissed Red Bull's claims but the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam took the opposite view, finding that"13 ... the sign ‘The Bulldog’ was similar to the mark ‘Red Bull Krating‑Daeng’ and that Mr de Vries, by riding on the coat-tails of that mark with a reputation, had sought to take advantage of the reputation of that mark with a view to having his share of the energy drinks market held by Red Bull and corresponding to a multimillion euro… [read post]
28 Dec 2019, 3:22 am
Earlier this month, His Honor Judge Hacon (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) issued his ruling in Fromageries Bel SA v J Sainsbury Plc [2019] EWHC 3454 (Ch), confirming the 'Babybel cheese' 3D trade mark could not survive an application for a declaration of invalidity. [read post]
12 Mar 2009, 6:05 am
For this third and penultimate entry in my series of posts on Jones v. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 5:12 pm by Barry Barnett
If you wonder what "prosecution history estoppel" in a patent infringement case means, you might check out MarcTec, LLC v. [read post]
2 Oct 2007, 1:09 pm
The usual citation in cases like these is Lefkowitz v. [read post]
11 Jul 2016, 12:32 pm
 | Justice Slade delivers judgement in Arthur J Gallagher Services v Skriptchenko  [read post]
14 Oct 2017, 5:05 am by Garrett Hinck
  John Bellinger and Andy Wang outlined the reasons why the Supreme Court should clarify the "touch and concern" standard in Jesner v. [read post]