Search for: "MATTER OF B T B"
Results 6701 - 6720
of 19,798
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Sep 2009, 5:01 am
Firm A arranges for its newly hired law school graduates to sit in on the professionalism sessions being taught at Firm B while permitting Firm B’s newly hired law school graduates to sit in on its client interviewing workshops. [read post]
14 Mar 2012, 3:29 pm
Communication: Notably in Company B and [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 8:03 pm
Let’s start with a key disclaimer: We don’t know that all the reported facts in these stories are correct, and we don’t know what other facts not reported may complicate the picture. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 6:45 am
And as just noted, we don’t have a clear theory of how much creativity constitutes a non-obvious advance. [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 9:31 pm
Jury testimony is permitted, therefore, on matters said to encompass “external matters” or “extraneous” influences on their deliberations (e.g., and most obviously, a threat, a bribe, reading or hearing about the trial from media sources, and so forth). [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 10:06 am
The General Court concluded that the EUIPO, as required, gave clear reasons for departing from its decisions regarding the earlier trade marks.Sometimes life isn't fairIn too Deep? [read post]
20 Sep 2022, 1:30 am
Nestle opposed all three applications on the grounds that: (i) the marks did not fulfil the requirements of a "sign" under section 1(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, challenged under section 3(1)(a) of the Act; and (ii) whether the marks had distinctiveness under section 3(1)(b) of the Act. [read post]
17 Apr 2017, 12:08 pm
But we weren't able to tell the whole truth. [read post]
16 Mar 2016, 5:00 am
R.C.P. 2229(b) which pertains to joinder of actions that arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. [read post]
20 Sep 2022, 1:30 am
Nestle opposed all three applications on the grounds that: (i) the marks did not fulfil the requirements of a "sign" under section 1(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, challenged under section 3(1)(a) of the Act; and (ii) whether the marks had distinctiveness under section 3(1)(b) of the Act. [read post]
20 Jul 2022, 9:55 am
And why don't they (we) matter? [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 2:00 pm
The physical presence standard from that case adopted a proxy for what truly matters, constitutionally: state taxes cannot burden interstate commerce, cannot discriminate against interstate commerce, and cannot tax more than their fair share of interstate commerce. [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 9:57 am
§ 411(b)(2). [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 9:54 am
If the creek’s dry, it doesn’t much matter if you have a paddle or not. [read post]
1 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
Please don’t misunderstand me – this isn’t meant to be a political statement. [read post]
26 Dec 2022, 6:00 am
” B. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 8:48 am
P. 41(b). [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 8:42 am
There aren’t any nominees for the two open seats. [read post]
11 Apr 2009, 5:02 am
You can't simply refer to joinder in explaining pleading--you also have to spend some time with the basic joinder rules; you can't teach supplemental jurisdiction without teaching the exception in § 1367(b), which is confusing. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 5:48 pm
If the lawyer didn’t work on the matter at the other firm but did learn confidences in the hallway (1.9(b)-type situations). [read post]
