Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 6781 - 6800
of 19,224
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2013, 7:59 am
It's A 10, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2017, 5:15 am
He states that because the respondent had no intention of infringing the trade marks (because of the franchisor's confusing requests), there is no trade mark infringement. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 10:43 am
And here the AG brought trade mark law into the picture. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 7:31 am
* Eponia: a State of mind? [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 5:34 am
Defendants, citing United States v Bertie Ambulance Serv. [read post]
29 Jun 2016, 12:36 pm
Commentary on the four-four tie in United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 9:53 am
The court held in State v. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 9:53 am
The court held in State v. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 4:05 am
” Briefly: At Education Week, Mark Walsh examines the history of the “’baby Blaine’ amendments—state constitutional measures that in some form or other bar government aid to religious denominations and religious schools” — at issue in Espinoza v. [read post]
4 Oct 2024, 5:28 am
[internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 4:19 am
The first is Murphy v. [read post]
15 Apr 2009, 8:28 am
By Eric Goldman [Eric's note: As I mentioned, I'm getting a lot of private emails about Rescuecom v. [read post]
6 May 2021, 4:54 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Sep 2023, 7:24 pm
By Mark A. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 6:00 am
That case, Matal v. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 5:43 pm
The Supreme Court will hear the libel appeal in Serafin v. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 5:20 am
“The fact that the plaintiff subsequently was unhappy with the settlement [she] obtained . . . does not rise to the level of legal malpractice” (Katsoris v Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 AD3d at 1506 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 758; Holschauer v Fisher, 5 AD3d 553, 554). [read post]
9 Dec 2016, 10:54 am
Boudette, The New York Times More Blog Entries: Davis v. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 12:35 pm
The Queen v Louis Riel / With an introduction by Desmond Morton. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 4:55 am
Thus, there is no basis for reducing a state’s obligation below its “mark” (the significance level). [read post]
