Search for: "USA V. IN"
Results 6381 - 6400
of 11,092
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Dec 2017, 3:59 am
” Commentary continues on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
13 Jan 2016, 3:40 am
In Bank Markazi v. [read post]
30 Apr 2018, 4:08 am
Last week’s oral argument in in Trump v. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 4:23 am
The first was in National Association of Manufacturers v. [read post]
21 Feb 2018, 12:03 pm
In M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 5:28 am
At Constitution Daily, Dawinder Sidhu explains why Holt v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:20 am
Briefly: For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that in The American Legion v. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 9:17 am
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in State v. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 4:04 am
v. [read post]
3 Jan 2025, 5:14 am
At this juncture, the professional judgment rule is not available as a defense because the record does not allow us to make a determination that defendants’ course of conduct was reasonable as a matter of law (see Escape Airports [USA], Inc. v Kent, Beatty & Gordon, LLP, 79 AD3d 437, 439 [1st Dept 2010]). [read post]
25 Apr 2019, 3:57 am
Yesterday the court ruled 5-4 in Lamps Plus Inc. v. [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 1:59 pm
At the end of 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in Baker v. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 6:46 pm
Apple) Appellate Review: Commil USA, LLC v. [read post]
22 Jan 2012, 10:21 am
(USA) Inc. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2013, 12:06 pm
WILLMAR SCHWABE GMBH Abandoned Soumen Ghosh 402/CHENP/2004 SCHERING CORPORATION Revoked T V Madhusudhan 3969/CHENP/2007 TAIYO KAGAKU CO., LTD Granted* T V Madhusudhan 3497/CHENP/2006 VAAKYA TECHNOLOGIES Granted V Saravanan 2894/CHENP/2007 SILVERBROOK RESEARCH PTY LTD Abandoned V Saravanan 623/MUMNP/2006 OBSCHESTO S OGRANICHENNOI Granted Vikash Sharma 560/MUMNP/2006 Approtec USA Refused Vikash Sharma 560/MUMNP/2006 Approtec… [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 8:09 am
As discussed here, if considered satire, not parody, Dumb Starbucks could be liable for infringement (Dr Seuss Enterprises v Penguin Books USA (1997)).It seems unlikely that adding DUMB- provides enough distinction for it to avoid being considered an unauthorised derivative of Starbucks’ copyrighted works. [read post]
13 May 2014, 9:23 am
"All this is compliant with the GAT and Folien decisions and the Corte di Cassazione ruling, as well the UK decision in Joined cases Actavis Group hf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) and Medis ehf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) [here]. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 10:00 pm
Guyoungtech USA, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2023, 7:01 am
Grimaldi) whereby the right to protect a registered trade mark (a protection given in the USA law essentially by the Lanham Act), under some circumstances, cannot be enforced to detriment of “the right of others to express themselves freely in their own artistic work” (from the Rogers v. [read post]
19 Dec 2015, 6:09 am
The style of this case is, Scottsdale Indemnity Company v. [read post]
