Search for: "Smith v. State"
Results 6541 - 6560
of 10,996
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 May 2007, 11:16 am
Smith v. [read post]
14 Feb 2008, 10:29 am
See Smith v. [read post]
10 Jan 2007, 12:53 pm
State of Indiana (NFP) Pamela Coomer v. [read post]
16 Oct 2016, 12:29 pm
Oct. 24, 2014))); see generally Smith v. [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 5:01 am
The decisionThe IPO’s decision focused on the words of section 3(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which states that “trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character” -- an absolute bar to registration that comes from Article 3(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive and is paralleled in Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-37/03 BioID v OHIM stated that the various… [read post]
31 Jul 2009, 4:42 am
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 10264, 2006 U.S. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 4:09 am
Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Trump v. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 11:38 am
Sudan v. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 9:47 am
United States On 21 February 2023, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Gonzalez v. [read post]
20 Sep 2022, 6:27 am
Smith v. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 10:10 am
The panel majority also rejected Mckesson's argument that NAACP v. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 2:26 am
In State v. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 12:32 pm
Roberts would also represent a number of states in the Microsoft antitrust case, United States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 11:06 am
Smith. [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 1:26 pm
In Town of Greece v. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 6:30 am
Ct. 1431 (2010), and Smith v. [read post]
24 May 2024, 7:38 am
See Smith v. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 1:39 am
R (on the application of Afzal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 7th June 2023. [read post]
27 Dec 2016, 8:16 am
In a March decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Smith v. [read post]
26 May 2011, 10:54 am
March 9, 2010) (“the plain language of the statute states that it only applies when the local defendants have been ‘properly joined and served’”); Haseko Homes, Inc. v. [read post]
