Search for: "Sellers v. State"
Results 701 - 720
of 3,984
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Nov 2011, 7:58 am
The case is DeGennaro v. [read post]
23 Jun 2023, 8:42 am
As Justice Kagan stated: “This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two words seldom appearing in the same sentence. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 4:30 am
" The United States District Court for the District of Colorado was faced with just that question in the recently decided Zapien v. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 5:55 am
In Steiner v. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 8:23 am
Such was the case in Hamilton v. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 6:49 am
Co. v. [read post]
1 May 2019, 6:31 am
See, e.g., Anthony v. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 12:06 pm
In Friday's McMillan v. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 5:21 am
In Bowman v. [read post]
30 May 2013, 6:19 am
The Eastland Court of Appeals issued an opinion in 1999, in the case Chicago Title v. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 10:07 pm
The re-seller should have some amount of leeway to use the trademark owner's mark in order to refer to the trademarked goods and in the re-seller's domain name, but the court's order doesn't cut the re-seller much slack. [read post]
10 Feb 2013, 12:35 pm
The case is Kransky v. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 4:00 am
The case, Gabelli v. [read post]
5 Feb 2015, 5:00 am
In its recent decision in the case of Sellers v. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 9:47 am
Introduced by Assemblyman Phil Steck on January 15, 2015 and by State Senator Andrew Lanza on March 20, 2015, the bill (A2147/S4447) is entitled “Policy Against Restraint of Trade,” and operates from the premise that the Court of Appeals decision in BDO Seidman v. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 9:47 am
Introduced by Assemblyman Phil Steck on January 15, 2015 and by State Senator Andrew Lanza on March 20, 2015, the bill (A2147/S4447) is entitled “Policy Against Restraint of Trade,” and operates from the premise that the Court of Appeals decision in BDO Seidman v. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 6:40 am
United States, No. 17-9082, Justice Samuel A. [read post]
25 May 2011, 12:57 pm
Burns v. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 12:39 pm
On February 20, 2008, the Court unanimously affirmed the First Circuit decision in Rowe v. [read post]
5 Sep 2021, 3:49 pm
In Chichak v. [read post]
