Search for: "State v. C. S."
Results 5981 - 6000
of 37,717
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 May 2007, 6:22 am
State v. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 4:57 am
The Judge held that they would not for, inter alia, the following reasons: (i) ASI did not use the sign ARGOS in relation to goods or services which are identical to those for which AUL’s marks are registered; (ii) ASI’s use of the sign ARGOS did not affect and was not liable to affect any of the functions of AUL’s marks; (iii) ASI’s use of the sign ARGOS did not give rise to a link between the sign and AUL’s marks in the… [read post]
30 Oct 2006, 1:30 pm
Professor Paul Rose of Northwestern Law School has written a thoughtful paper on the possibilities for convergence of company law in the EU after the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-212/97 Centros Ltd v Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 7:42 pm
Readers of this blog may recall my criticism of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Pintos v. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 4:36 am
United States v. [read post]
23 Mar 2008, 9:01 pm
Kevin C. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 6:22 am
State v. [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 4:59 am
United States v. [read post]
13 Sep 2009, 6:33 am
State, 626 So. 2d 185, 186 (Fla. 1993) (stating that in a consensual encounter, a citizen may either comply with a police officer's requests or ignore them; the citizen is free to leave). [read post]
20 May 2012, 5:17 am
California, supra, 384 U.S. at pp. 770-771; see also State v. [read post]
29 Jul 2017, 5:32 pm
SHARON EUL et al., on behalf of themselves and a class, Plaintiffs,v.TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS et al., Defendants.No. 15 C 7755.United States District Court, N.D. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 4:37 pm
State v. [read post]
31 Jan 2007, 4:56 pm
United States v. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 1:00 am
R v M; R v C; R v T, heard 19 Jun 2017. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 11:18 am
And the S&C lawyers never notified the court of their withdrawal. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 2:49 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 10:01 am
In its final decision, the court stated that the approach it should take would be for the claimant to have ‘(1) 100% its costs relatively generously assessed (by IPEC standards) down to the date of the Defendant’s offer in December 2012, (2) ... a reasonable proportion of its costs, but not all of them, after the date of that offer’. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 7:51 am
United States v. [read post]
15 Aug 2017, 6:55 am
In a recent decision, Commonwealth v. [read post]
