Search for: "Spears v. Howes" Results 61 - 80 of 191
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Sep 2015, 7:41 am
Spear & Sons Ltd and others v Zynga Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 290 (the SCRABBLE/SCRAMBLE case), and Maier and another v ASOS Plc and another [2015] EWCA Civ 220): if there was confusion between two trade marks or the risk of it, (i) it would have come to light, and (ii) the trade mark owner would have reacted. [read post]
28 May 2018, 4:00 am by Administrator
In the case of Mohamed v. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 4:33 am by Terry Hart
Spear, 520 US 154, 173 (1997) (quoting US v. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 2:08 pm by Andrew Berger
That’s because on December 20, 2011, the Ninth Circuit held in UMG v. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 11:21 am by Terry Pell
How many union members will leave if the Supreme Court does away with compulsory dues? [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 5:09 pm by Buce
Bankruptcy lawyers grasp this one: "bankruptcy insolvency" v. [read post]
7 Mar 2023, 5:31 am by Alistair Simmons
Recognizing pivotal areas of contention between the court opinions offers insight into how the opposing parties will present their arguments in the Supreme Court, foreshadowing how the legal battle is likely to play out on the highest stage for domestic law. [read post]
20 May 2008, 8:34 pm
In a 1972 opinion, one court discussed the dangers of glass injuries from glass that was not "safety glass": "‘Purposeful footsteps, impact, the harsh, shattering crash of jagged spears of glass falling and disintegrating on the floor, and disabling and disfiguring injuries or death -- this sequence of events is acted out, according to safety experts, in 40,000 American homes annually.'" Moody v. [read post]
16 Dec 2016, 6:50 am by Quinta Jurecic
Lewis was among those legal advisors disqualified by the order: “We just stopped working on anything involved with United States v. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 7:14 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
" [of the result]I first scoured the majority opinion, written by Ginsburg, looking for how the court would distinguish the principle in this case from the principle in [United States v. [read post]