Search for: "PANEL PROCESSING, INC." Results 641 - 660 of 2,726
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jan 2008, 2:21 pm
Advanced Architectural Metals, Inc. and its alter egos Advanced Metals, Inc. and Steel Specialties Unlimited, a single employer (28-CA-20730, et al.; 351 NLRB No. 80) Las Vegas, NV Dec. 27, 2007. [read post]
8 Sep 2006, 4:47 am
This Board panel, however, asserted that third-party registrations, while not establishing binding precedent, "may in general be given some weight to show the meaning of a mark in the same way that dictionary definitions would be so used. [read post]
13 Jan 2009, 7:01 am by Steve Worrall
Varon, CPA, CVA, JD, of Alternative Resolution Methods, Inc. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 5:18 am by Paul Roberto Rodriguez Aviles
A Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) decided that lawsuits against Minnesota-based 3M Company regarding defective military-issued earplugs involved common questions of fact and that centralization of the cases would allow more efficient handling of the cases by the federal courts during the pre-trial process. [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 6:59 am by Joy Waltemath
” Members Miscimarra and Johnson filed separate opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part (Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co., Inc., December 15, 2014). [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 12:28 am by Barry Barnett
As the panel explained: [GSG] has appointed officers pursuant to a written resolution process, but this process was not widely disseminated. [read post]
10 Jul 2024, 6:55 am by Dennis Crouch
The Federal Circuit panel in SnapRays had distinguished cases involving ordinary cease-and-desist letters, reasoning that “LDG did more than send a cease and desist letter” by initiating the APEX process that would automatically remove SnapRays’ listings absent action by SnapRays. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 10:41 am by Todd Zywicki
Also on the panel in Fairchild v. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 4:01 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
"Reuters had written:On April 29, a three-judge panel in New York upheld a lower court's ruling dismissing objections to Bayer AG paying Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Inc's Barr Laboratories to prevent it from bringing to market a version of the anthrax drug Cipro.But the panel invited further review by the full nine-judge panel of the U.S. [read post]