Search for: "MATTER OF T F"
Results 7081 - 7100
of 13,490
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jul 2014, 7:54 am
That doesn’t mean appellate courts are then free to pontificate on any matter they see fit; ordinary rules of judicial review would still apply. [read post]
31 Jul 2014, 7:45 am
It doesn’t matter how small AMI’s interest in remaining silent is; the government has to show that its interest justifies the regulation. [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 2:39 am
Our firm, the Law Offices of Jonathan F. [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 12:01 am
” F. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 5:02 pm
The court stated that under the “but for” formulation, “[t]he party invoking the privilege must show ‘the communication would not have been made “but for” the fact that legal advice was sought. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 3:30 pm
Openheimer, 637 F.3d 318 (1981) is “the seminal case on damages in a suitability case[.] [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 8:42 pm
Inc., 275 F.3d 1066, 1072 (Fed. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 9:16 am
Even if McCarthy’s statement means that a trade dress with more elements is generally weaker than a trademark with fewer elements, that didn’t matter on the facts of this case. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 5:38 am
, 525 F.3d 1299 (U.S. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 10:33 pm
James F. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 9:03 am
In litigating scientific issues, lawyers and judges will necessarily have to engage with substantive matters. [read post]
26 Jul 2014, 1:00 pm
(Mike) McConnell testified before Congress in September 2007 during the extensive public debate that occurred prior to the passage of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that: [i]t is important to keep in mind that, in certain situations, the Intelligence Community needs [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 8:40 pm
And, in Ethicon, this court held that, “as a matter of substantive patent law, all co-owners must ordinarily consent to join as plaintiffs in an infringement suit. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 2:52 pm
True, but why does it matter? [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 1:39 pm
It doesn’t matter. [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 12:50 pm
I can’t tell you how scared I was. [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 8:51 am
Hagan, 266 F. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 10:01 pm
Bloomberg, 742 F. 3d 17 (2d Cir. 2014) might shed some interesting light on how news reporting plays into the analysis. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 7:30 am
Article 3(1)(f) of Trade Mark Directive 2008/95 provides that"(f) trade marks which are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality"shall not be registered, and 15 U.S.C. para 1052(a) of the Lanham Act in the USA provides that registration shall be refused to a mark which"Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead,… [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 3:39 am
That doesn’t prevent a prosecutor from arguing a total line of “hogwash” to the court: She seemed to take particular offense at an argument by a prosecutor, F. [read post]
