Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B."
Results 6341 - 6360
of 15,316
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Oct 2016, 9:01 pm
But despite this specter, New York’s highest court just adopted the doctrine of de facto parentage, in Brooke B. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2016, 12:15 am
In this case, the act complained of was an offer for sale in England, on the principles laid down in L’Oreal v eBay, i.e. the defendant’s website was not merely accessible from the UK but was in fact targeted at (among others) English customers.The allegedly infringing product on Heritage Audio's sitePassing-offFor passing-off, the judge noted that the CJEU had applied the Brussels I rules not only to trade mark and copyright infringement claims but also… [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 6:26 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 1:02 pm
The investor's own allegations, the court said, repeatedly states that RBC’s misrepresentations and omissions directly induced their purchase of the notes. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 7:08 am
In U.S. v Nagel the defendant appealed his 292 month sentence imposed after pleading guilty to a charge of enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2422(b) His appeal centered around the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence specifically whether the district court was correct in not grouping count one and count two of the defendant’s conviction in accordance with section 3D1.2 of the federal sentencing… [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 6:33 am
In Shade v. [read post]
18 Oct 2016, 7:49 am
The fact that the settlement was accomplished through an opt-out class action did not raise an irreconcilable conflict with FLSA Section 216(b)’s mandate that FLSA claims cannot be asserted using an opt-out class action (Richardson v. [read post]
18 Oct 2016, 7:43 am
Kaplinsky In its decision last week in PHH Corporation v. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 9:42 am
App. 38.B. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 3:06 am
Applicant Allstate moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, asserting that the pleaded marks are not owned by a single entity and therefore cannot, as a matter of law, comprise a family of marks. [read post]
16 Oct 2016, 11:44 pm
The law is all about F-A-C-T-S. [read post]
16 Oct 2016, 11:45 am
United States v. [read post]
15 Oct 2016, 12:38 pm
United States v. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 2:02 pm
The Department of Justice (DOJ) offers Kamal-Griffin v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 2:06 pm
All of those other states say that, yep, the landowner can be liable in such a setting, even in states that have their own analogue to Section 846.But not here in California. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 11:25 am
§§ 43:21-19(i)(6)(A) – (C); Hargrove v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 11:25 am
§§ 43:21-19(i)(6)(A) – (C); Hargrove v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 6:50 am
Kraft Food Brands Group LLC, No 16-341 (Does the general and broad definition of “residence” found in 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) apply to the patent venue statute 1400(b)) BPCIA – Notice of Commercial Marketing: Apotex Inc., et al. v. [read post]
12 Oct 2016, 12:47 pm
Humphrey’s Executor v. [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 8:10 am
In that respect, the court noted (as also previously stated by the EUIPO) that, according to settled case-law, the application of Article 7(1)(c) of the EUTMR does not depend on the existence of a real, current or serious need to leave a sign free. [read post]
