Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 7301 - 7320
of 21,693
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Oct 2017, 4:30 am
The Sportswear case stated that a federal registered service mark does not have to register that mark for goods to “establish the unrestricted validity and scope of the service mark, or to protect against another’s allegedly infringing of that mark on goods. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 4:01 am
Hawaii and Trump v. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 3:23 am
S.p.A. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 12:52 pm
Irvine v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 8:54 am
The pun seems inevitable: In Wednesday morning’s oral argument in Class v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 8:05 am
Ohio v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 6:54 am
Broomfield v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 4:11 am
Creating a “release valve” for attorneys reaching the state mandated 2,000 hour per year mark for indigent representation so defendants wouldn’t be worried about attorneys “giving up” on their case. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 2:04 am
United States Postal Service v. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 9:01 pm
And they also understand that the state’s ostensible goal—anti-pollution—could be more precisely accomplished by a law that is more directly tailored to the state’s purpose, a ban on littering (as the Court reasoned in Schneider v. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 7:04 am
PLC v. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 4:38 am
Here the account stated claim fails and the breach of fiduciary duty claim withstands attack. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 4:17 am
The first was Gill v. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 3:15 am
Prospector Capital Partners, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 3:00 am
This new case is Mark Janus v. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 2:48 pm
Why not, above all, in Bush v. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 4:15 am
At Education Week, Mark Walsh reports on the grant in in Janus v. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 8:54 pm
Discrimination/Retaliation*Brown v. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 4:50 pm
2005: SEC v. [read post]
1 Oct 2017, 4:08 pm
Max Hill v Mail on Sunday, A Man v The Gazette (Paisley) Ward v Mail on Sunday. [read post]
