Search for: "In Re Jessica C."
Results 61 - 80
of 278
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jun 2016, 12:13 pm
The key is the non-reputation-related disadvantage, to distinguish b/t I want this b/c it looks nice and b/c I like the TM owner. [read post]
12 Apr 2019, 2:50 pm
Introduction: Jessica Litman [sadly missed, due to teaching]Bob Bone [midtalk]: How careful we want to be about market definition may depend on error costs. [read post]
6 Dec 2023, 12:24 pm
For this past month, the three most-consulted English-language decisions were: Jessica McGaw v. [read post]
4 Aug 2023, 10:14 am
If we’re not ok with that, think about narrowing the scope of the enforceable right. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 4:36 am
So even if we’re persuaded on TM use we have to think about the scope of that right. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 11:58 am
Land, Res. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 2:42 pm
Joined by Justices Kathleen O’Leary and Eileen C. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 1:56 am
Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Jessica Rutzick of Jessica Rutzick Attorney at Law, PC, Jackson, Wyoming and John R. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 5:17 am
Jessica C. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 11:33 am
Discussion leaders: Jessica SilbeyWhy and how? [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 12:30 am
The first is a review of Jessica M. [read post]
16 Oct 2016, 12:36 pm
C. [read post]
2 Jun 2013, 2:15 pm
State, No. 103,915 (Douglass)K.S.A. 60-1507 appeal (petition for review)Jessica R. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 9:00 am
We’re also keeping our eye on recent complaints by Weight Watchers employees – the overwhelming majority of whom are women – who allege that the weight loss giant has kept salaries low and pressured its employees to work unpaid hours while earning lavishing huge sums on high-profile celebrity endorsers such as Jennifer Hudson and Jessica Simpson. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 11:35 am
“They’re upsetting the framework of one of my majors. [read post]
22 May 2013, 12:24 pm
The complete absence of any opportunity for judicial review to assess a risk of re-offending, which is beyond the norm of Jessica’s law, is arbitrary and cannot be deemed rationally related to the legislature’s stated purpose of protecting the public from those with a high risk of re-offending. [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 12:38 pm
By Michael C. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 12:04 pm
C gets permission from B to speak; has C caused A to speak as well? [read post]
12 Mar 2009, 1:23 pm
"Now we're left wondering: What didn't we say? [read post]
20 May 2016, 12:25 pm
RT: same move is made in In re Tam: §2(a) disparagement is subject to strict scrutiny b/c it’s not commercial speech, but the deception bars in §2 are totally ok because Central Hudson. [read post]
