Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B."
Results 7341 - 7360
of 15,316
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jul 2015, 6:27 am
C. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 6:00 am
What does “pretend” mean, especially as it is absent from subsection (b)? [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 11:58 am
” Second, the public closely associates official state license plate designs with the state. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 6:01 am
(b) The employee's acts or omissions were with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner;(c) Civil liability is expressly imposed upon the employee by a section of the Revised Code. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 4:44 pm
One of the more famous cases on the matter, Konchar v. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 1:55 pm
Patent No. 8,177,449• Count V for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 9:31 am
.\ In the recent case (Grewal v. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 9:00 am
” b. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 12:36 pm
| 3-D Lego trade mark | Garcia v Google | B+ subgroup | EU trade mark reform and counterfeits in transit | French v Battistelli | US v Canada over piracy | UK Supreme Court in Starbucks | BASCA v The Secretary of State for Business | Patent litigation, music, politics | Product placement in Japan.Never too late 50 [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 9:45 am
Altogether, the court concludes that McCool violated Rules of Professional Conduct against Improper Ex Parte Communication (Rules 3.5(a), 3.5(b) and 8.4(a)), Dissemination of False and Misleading Information (Rule 8.4(c)) and Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice (Rule 8.4(d)). [read post]
4 Jul 2015, 3:39 pm
Women’s rights groups all over the United States applauded what I did. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 2:46 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 11:15 am
§ 924(c)(2). [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 4:06 pm
” He found both tweets conveyed imputations (c )/(d). [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 3:12 pm
C. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 7:13 pm
See§§825.127(c) and 825.200(b). [read post]
Guest Post: In Rush to Invalidate Patents at Pleadings Stage, Are Courts Coloring Outside the Lines?
1 Jul 2015, 3:30 pm
I commend the district court’s adherence to the Supreme Court’s instruction that patent eligibility is a “threshold” issue, Bilski v. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 2:32 pm
In United States v. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 1:03 pm
However, he agreed with the challenge based on the marks' inherent distinctiveness under s 3(1)(b), holding that they failed to meet the criteria in Case C-398/08 P Audi AG v OHIM [the 'Vorsprung durch Technik' case, noted by the IPKat here] in that they lacked originality, did not require any interpretation by the relevant public and were not indicative of a particular undertaking. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 7:34 am
United States[13], the district court refused to enforce plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoena that sought documents from defendant’s expert witness. [read post]
