Search for: "AT&T Services Inc. " Results 6341 - 6360 of 17,730
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jun 2011, 11:37 pm by Lara
You see, G.A.P Adventures’ branding adventures with using a famous mark for unrelated services brought it into a battle with The Gap, Inc. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 9:50 pm
Capital City Bank Group, Inc., Opposition No. 91177415 [Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the marks CAPITAL CITY BANK, CAPITAL CITY BANC INVESTMENTS, CAPITAL CITY BANK GROWING BUSINESS, and CAPITAL CITY BANK INVESTMENTS for banking services, in view of the registered mark CITIBANK for banking services].October 15, 2009 - 11 AM: Gilmar S.p.A. v. [read post]
21 Nov 2017, 7:00 am by Sara Josselyn
Some noteworthy transactions in the previous year include Microsoft’s purchase of game-streaming service Beam Interactive Inc., Twitch’s acquisition of communication platform Curse Inc. and their recent purchase of ClipMine Inc., and Activision-Blizzard’s purchase of eSports digital network Major League Gaming Inc. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 6:58 am by Guest Blogger
  In the past, the DHBA has recognized Siemens PLM (2011), Fluor Law Department (2010), AT&T Services, Inc. (2009), American Airlines, Inc. (2008), Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (2007), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2006). [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 4:48 am by Susan Brenner
In other words, it didn’t look like the kind of Mafia family the OCCA and RICO were designed to pursue. [read post]
9 Aug 2016, 8:17 am by Hannah Smith and Luke Goodrich
Throughout this week the blog is hosting an online symposium on Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 9:23 am by Kristian Soltes
Objectors Had No Role In $6B Swipe Fee Deal, Court ToldLaw360 – August 1, 2019 (subscription required) Merchants who secured a multibillion-dollar swipe fee settlement with Visa Inc., Mastercard Inc. and a group of banks urged a New York federal judge Wednesday not to grant legal fees to objectors to the original deal, arguing that the objectors played no part in increasing the payment amount. [read post]