Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 6101 - 6120
of 19,223
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2014, 6:34 am
” Briefly: In Education Week, Mark Walsh reports on last week’s decision in Harris v. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 7:43 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 5:09 am
Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2024, 9:30 pm
Trump v. [read post]
26 May 2017, 7:54 am
By Mark S. [read post]
8 Apr 2007, 6:58 pm
On March 28, the Southern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction in Pet Silk, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 11:05 am
As stated above, when Dr. [read post]
31 May 2019, 4:17 am
Here, the plaintiff’s legal malpractice cause of action accrued on March 20, 2012, when she, acting on the defendants’ advice, filed the bankruptcy petition (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301; Tantleff v Kestenbaum & Mark, 131 AD3d 955, 956; Landow v Snow Becker Krauss, P.C., 111 AD3d 795, 796). [read post]
29 May 2008, 10:00 am
We posted Wyeth's principal brief in Wyeth v. [read post]
27 Dec 2019, 2:31 pm
More than exposed, 2019 marked their explosion, the aftermath of which, in 2020, will be marked by the start of a variety of end games in law, society, politics, culture and economics. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 9:49 am
In short, Coty was the exclusive licensee for the Community trade mark DAVIDOFF HOT WATER for perfumery. [read post]
14 Oct 2024, 1:38 am
The Court stated that the limited availability of colours must be considered not only for colour and colour combination marks, but also for colour combination position marks. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 11:51 am
28 Feb 2007, 2:27 pm
This requirement is consistent with the limitation imposed upon state-taxpayer standing in federal courts in Doremus v. [read post]
1 Apr 2022, 4:50 am
Rapp v Lauer, 200 AD2d 726, 728; Furia v Furia, 116 AD2d at 695). [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 3:02 am
”); “Christie v. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 7:03 am
 The unsigned ruling in Wong v. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 5:04 am
So far this has (to the IPKat's knowledge) only been in the case of published trade mark rights (see for example here) and design rights (see for example Decision of Invalidity Division File number: ICD 000000396 here), but it would have been equally possible in the case of an unpublished application for a registered design (as might have been the case in the seminal Pepsico v Grupo Promer case, had the dates been only slightly different). [read post]
18 Oct 2015, 9:32 am
The judge erred by proceeding on the basis that the global award did not need to be proportionate to that scale and that he could focus on compensation by adopting a “single wrong by single wrong” basis for compensation. (2) The size of the awards is disproportionate by reference to awards by the European Court of Human Rights for breaches of privacy. (3) There has been double-counting in the awards of… [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 3:55 am
Shaw, 572 F.3d 1087, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2009) (quotation marks omitted). [read post]
