Search for: "CO.1. Means" Results 7801 - 7820 of 16,765
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Mar 2012, 10:40 am by Brishen Rogers
First off, a big thanks to Dave Hoffman and the Co-Op crew for having me over for the month. [read post]
28 Sep 2017, 9:21 am by Scott Hervey
 To establish a trade dress infringement claim, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) the trade dress is inherently distinctive or has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning; (2) there is a likelihood that the public will be confused by the infringing use; and (3) the trade dress is nonfunctional. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 1:52 am
Article 102(1) empowers the High Court Division to give directions or orders to any person or authority as may be appropriate to enforce any of the fundamental rights conferred in Part III. [read post]
26 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
  The Kansas Supreme Court rejected an attempt in another sperm donor case, In re K.M.H., to give the provision something other than its obvious meaning. [read post]
17 Sep 2018, 6:10 am by Joel R. Brandes
The Legislative memorandum noted that the adoption of the proposed new CPLR 4540-a would not preclude establishing authenticity by any other statutory or common law means. [read post]
17 Sep 2018, 6:10 am by Joel R. Brandes
The Legislative memorandum noted that the adoption of the proposed new CPLR 4540-a would not preclude establishing authenticity by any other statutory or common law means. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 12:23 pm
The panel struggled to answer whether the two models can co-exist in one firm. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 1:30 am by Monique Altheim
Reding's press conference on EU #Dataprotection Reform package livestreamed on 1/25 at 12pm GMT+1 here: ow.ly/8F0S6 #privacy #CPDP2012 # Minnesota AG Sues Debt Collection Agency for Health Privacy Violations http://t.co/fLkgZHEN # What Does The Supreme Court's "GPS Decision" Mean For Private Employers? [read post]
20 Sep 2021, 6:53 am by Cinthia Macie
American Express Co.,[9] the Supreme Court held that, for two-sided transaction platforms, the analysis of competitive effects must account for both sides of the platform. [read post]