Search for: "Companies A, B, and C" Results 6801 - 6820 of 12,894
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jun 2014, 10:30 am
We can call it war, but we don’t actually need to mean it, as(a) Copyright is cool, and so may be public domain;(b) Things are going better than what we usually admit;(c) Really, they do. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 10:28 am
Effient products contain prasugrel hydrochloride, which is also known as 5-[(1RS)-2-cyclopropyl-1-(2-fluorophenyl)-2-oxoethyl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[3,2-c]pyridin-2-yl acetate hydrochloride or 2-acetoxy-5-(alpha-cyclopropylcarbonyl-2-fluorobenzy1)-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[3,2-c]pyridine hydrochloride, and is covered by the '726 patent. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 6:36 am by INFORRM
. :: B – “Babykins” – what Prince William called his then girlfriend Kate Middleton in a voicemail. :: C – Cat. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 1:00 am
 History: The Florida Supreme Court was created when Florida became a State in A) 1840; B) 1845; C)1859. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 6:02 am by Robichaud
Here is one article from an insurance company explaining rates increases to the point of doubling or tripling. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 6:02 am by Robichaud
Here is one article from an insurance company explaining rates increases to the point of doubling or tripling. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 6:00 am
Code §§ 2703(a), (b) and (c) to disclose certain records and contents of electronic communications relating to an Apple e-mail address. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 7:00 am by Guest Blogger
However, the Defendant did not place me in their company. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 2:40 pm
At that time, another person who had received the same junk faxes from Ramsgate, and another company managed by Ramsgate, had already initiated a similar, but separate class action against Ramsgate and the management company in Illinois state court. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 8:12 am by Daniel Schwartz
C — See the case of Starbucks Coffee Company, decided by the NLRB last week. 3. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 8:08 am
 In 2009, the Swiss company Künzli SwissSchuh AG (‘Künzli’) [the opponent Künzli Swiss is Swiss; the applicant K-Swiss is American; the confusing similarity between companies' names is only due to the irony of destiny] made an application for invalidity, claiming that K-Swiss’ trade mark was devoid of distinctive character under what is now Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation 207/2009. [read post]