Search for: "In Interest of C." Results 7621 - 7640 of 42,105
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jan 2014, 7:42 am
Put your new nail polish on ...Earlier this week the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its decision in Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box [here], in which it held that - in certain circumstances - it may be lawful to circumvent a protection system. [read post]
29 Jun 2014, 7:22 am by Bankruptcy Attorney
§ 1562(c) Unlimited Military service survivor’s benefit 10 U.S.C. [read post]
1 Apr 2022, 3:48 am
In re Chestek PLLC, Serial No. 88938938 (March 30, 2022) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cynthia C. [read post]
19 Jan 2023, 9:06 am by Nedim Malovic
In all this, the Charlot case is of particular interest because the Office emphasized the values associated with the character portrayed by Charlie Chaplin as being such as to render the mark non-registrable due to the advertising perception conveyed by such values. [read post]
8 Nov 2013, 11:36 am by Bexis
  Id. at 22-25, 32-33.There's an interesting addition, proposed §314.70(c)(8)(iii), which claims to codifiy FDA practice regarding what changes are, and are not, amenable to "this narrow exception to the general requirement for FDA approval of revised labeling prior to distribution." [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 10:13 am by Adrian Miedema
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has upheld the criminal negligence (“Bill C-45”) conviction and 3 1/2 year jail term imposed on Vadim Kazenelson, the Project Manager for Metron Construction. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 1:34 pm
If you own your home, part of the mortgage interest, taxes and utilities you paid may qualify. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 4:30 am by Giancarlo Frosio
Meanwhile, we managed to get a copy of the referral and thought of interest to share a summary in English of the ordinance with you. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 7:12 am by Jocelyn Bosse
 Katfriend Til Todorski provided updates on a pending CJEU decision (IKEA, C-298/23). [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 1:49 am by Jon L. Gelman
Here, the judge disqualified B&C based on a violation of R.P.C. 1.7, which states, in pertinent part, that "a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. [read post]