Search for: "Leathers v. United States" Results 61 - 80 of 140
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Feb 2020, 9:48 am by Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
VA 1-987-746 and the United States Trademark Registrations below (collectively “Harley’s Intellectual Property”). [read post]
29 Dec 2009, 4:04 pm by John W. Arden
Supreme Court's ruling, in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc, v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 7:50 am by John Elwood
United States, 12-8505, for that upstart non-relist Paroline v. [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 11:05 am by Glenn
 See Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. [read post]
6 May 2022, 6:10 am by Noah J. Phillips
In 1977, in GTE Sylvania, the Courtheld that vertical customer and territorial restraints should be judged under the rule of reason.[17] In 1979, in BMI, it held that a blanket license issued by a clearinghouse of copyright owners that set a uniform price and prevented individual negotiation with licensees was a necessary precondition for the product and was thus subject to the rule of reason.[18] In 1984, in Jefferson Parish, the Court rejected automatic application of the per se rule to tying.[19]… [read post]
11 Aug 2019, 8:50 am by Omar Ha-Redeye
These philosophies also found their way into the controversial 2010 SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 4:24 am by Alessandro Cerri
 BackgroundIn 2008, Yannick Noah, a French former tennis player, registered the following figurative sign (the Mark) as a European Union trade mark (EUTM), in respect of a number of categories of goods, including leather goods, clothing, games and playthings (the Registration): In 2019, Noah Clothing LLC, a clothing company based in the United States, filed an application with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) seeking revocation of the… [read post]
4 May 2010, 5:30 am
In this case, the United States District Court, for the Western District of Missouri, denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand finding that the CAFA’s home state controversy is not applicable when the plaintiff charged the foreign corporation as directly liable for the injuries. [read post]
2 Feb 2016, 8:12 am by Darcy Jalandoni
” Apple sought a petition of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court in October 2015. [read post]