Search for: "State v. Light"
Results 7881 - 7900
of 26,003
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2024, 1:54 pm
In Dept of State v. [read post]
10 May 2016, 2:04 pm
Schoenfeld v. [read post]
10 May 2016, 2:04 pm
Schoenfeld v. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 1:03 pm
Cheswold v Central Delaware Business Park, 2018 WL 2748372 (DE 6/8/2018) [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 7:54 am
In VVM Builders, LLC v. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 1:51 pm
The style of the case is, Standard Waste Systems Ltd. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2023, 11:32 am
Surely, having testified that the “traffic light was green,” the witness can’t backtrack and revise her testimony about the light color to red. [read post]
2 Jan 2022, 8:17 am
., colour marks and 3D marks) (MHCS v EUIPO | Case T-274/20 and Guerlain v EUIPO | Case T-488/20), the risks of using a mark in a manner other than that registered (Fashioneast Sàrl v EUIPO | Case T-297/20) and taking unfair advantage of the reputation of a well-known mark (Asolo Ltd. v EUIPO | Case T-509/19) and the importance of presenting valid arguments for the existence of a link between the marks - even in the case of marks with an exceptional… [read post]
12 Sep 2010, 10:00 pm
In that closely-watched case, see slip opinion in Caperton v. [read post]
6 Feb 2017, 10:52 am
See United States v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 6:04 pm
§ 3582(c)), and even though the right to counsel applies to post-sentencing actions that affect time in custody (Mempa v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 11:19 am
Idle-O Apartments v. [read post]
31 Oct 2024, 12:15 am
” JCCrandall, LLC v. [read post]
6 Dec 2008, 3:44 pm
" United States v. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 3:49 pm
See United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:03 pm
., Local 100, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v City of Mount Vernon 2022 NY Slip Op 04023 Decided on June 22, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
7 May 2019, 5:22 am
” Paco v. [read post]
19 Jan 2022, 8:08 am
Those three non-standard-essential patents, which have not previously been asserted against any party, are now at the heart of Ericsson's third ITC complaint against Apple.In light of this newly discovered document, I have to update my hierarchical directory of the seven Ericsson-Apple cases pending in the United States:FRAND actionsEricsson v. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 5:49 am
Further case law has also illustrated that the attractiveness of a design, the intentions of the author, the design’s visual effect, symbolism and commercial success in the marketplace will not be factors in a finding of eligibility for copyright protection (Bleistein v Donaldson Lithographing Co).In relation to derivative works, it is stated that the registration of such works would not cover any previously published or registered works (17 U.S.C. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 9:41 am
Conroy v. [read post]
