Search for: "Fine v. Fine"
Results 6841 - 6860
of 16,012
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Mar 2016, 8:23 am
We don’t speak of the weaving and delivery of cloth, or the building of homes, or the bottling of fine wines as legal activities. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 11:42 am
License + IP right is modularization, but must be combined with contract that allows you, not necessarily to expand the grant you got, but to fine-tune the relationship in customized way to regulate info flow between third parties who otherwise lack reliable instrument to do that. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 7:55 am
And that’s fine. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 6:11 am
Additional Resources: Betancourt v. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 6:11 am
Additional Resources: Betancourt v. [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 6:46 pm
Van Dunk v. [read post]
8 Mar 2016, 4:02 pm
SECTION V: CONFLICTING ORDINANCES - All ordinances, or part thereof, in conflict herewith are, to the extent of such conflict, repealed. [read post]
8 Mar 2016, 1:05 pm
Enerco Group, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 6:17 am
v. [read post]
5 Mar 2016, 12:30 am
While the Appellate Division ruled against her, its opinion in State v. [read post]
4 Mar 2016, 1:11 pm
But surely it still owes the fine, right? [read post]
2 Mar 2016, 9:30 pm
In a 2013 paper, Kevin V. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 9:31 am
In the case, Pace v. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 5:38 am
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing separately in Whitman v. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 12:21 pm
Okay, fine. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 10:20 am
Lord Justice Kitchin acknowledged that the assessment of confusion based on the degree of similarity between the mark and sign, and the degree of similarity between the services of the mark and sign, initially appeared finely balanced. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 9:10 am
They are also legally complex – not only because of the fine distinctions on which they turn, but because of the questions they are likely to raise about the underlying legal framework. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 7:03 am
Ratonel et al v. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 4:51 am
The putative test, “clear and present danger,” arose from Schenk v. [read post]
