Search for: "State v. Register" Results 661 - 680 of 12,425
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Oct 2022, 11:00 pm
Valdez and David Morhovich v ACI VI Denizen LLC ComplaintRonda Kasl v 1719 27ST LLC ComplaintREAD THE CITY LIMITS STORY HERE [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 1:21 pm by Dennis Crouch
In addition to the one patent case (Helsinn), the Supreme Court also has one Copyright case lined-up for its October 2018 term: Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 11:01 am
In so doing, states Plaintiff, Defendants have committed trademark infringement under federal and state law, unfair competition under the state law of Indiana, false designation of origin, injury to business reputation and/or trademarks, common law unfair competition. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 2:56 am by John L. Welch
The CAFC then dismissed the appeal as moot and remanded the case to "allow the Board to consider a motion to vacate its decision in the first instance, in accordance with United States Bancorp Mortgage Company v. [read post]
14 Nov 2008, 10:00 am
Zalewska v Department for Social Development (Child Poverty Action Group and another intervening) [2008] UKHL 67; [2008] WLR (D); [2008] WLR (D) 356 “The United Kingdom's decision to restrict the payment of welfare benefits for nationals of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic (known collectively as the ‘A8 states’) to those who had worked an uninterrupted 12 months in employment… [read post]
1 Mar 2023, 8:00 am by Erin Sutton
§ 802(54), the “practice of telemedicine” means the remote practice of medicine in accordance with applicable federal and state laws, using an audio-visual, real-time, two-way interactive communication system, which practice is being conducted: (1) while the patient is being treated by, and physically located in, a DEA-registered hospital or clinic, and the remote prescribing practitioner is acting in the usual course of professional practice, in accordance with… [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 9:00 am by Alessandro Cerri
It did so largely on the basis of its interpretation of Article 9(1) of Directive 89/104, the key wording of which is "has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of a later trade mark registered in that Member State while being aware of such use". [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 9:36 am by David Kopel
In short, the statute says it’s a “penalty,” not a tax, and United States v. [read post]