Search for: "State v. GC"
Results 61 - 80
of 461
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 May 2024, 8:47 am
Starbucks (10(j) Relief Standard): On April 23, 2024, oral argument before the United States Supreme Court took place in Starbucks Corp. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 7:32 am
Last week's GC decision also provides an indirect reminder in this sense. [read post]
28 Mar 2024, 5:09 am
McGranahan v. [read post]
28 Feb 2007, 11:29 am
When you read the the Compliant filed in SEC v. [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 12:46 pm
By Amanda Howard In Chenevert v. [read post]
26 May 2023, 6:00 am
Interestingly, the EU doesn’t mention the United States, which is arguably the most significant country yet to implement an effective site-blocking regime. [read post]
15 Jan 2024, 3:29 am
The other two are APE TEES (EUIPO v Nowhere, C-337/22 P) and SHOPPI (Shopify v EUIPO, C-751/22 P, see here and here)). [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 12:00 am
On 1 February 2023, the General Court of the EU issued two judgments (T-568/21 and T-569/21 – Zoubier Harbaoui v EUIPO) on two trade mark oppositions filed by Google with the EUIPO against the trade mark applications for the signs "GOOGLE CAR" and "GC GOOGLE CAR". [read post]
12 Aug 2019, 6:00 am
Related Musings:Should a Subcontractor provide bonds to a GC who is…Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when…English v. [read post]
17 May 2024, 8:36 am
Our hypothetical platform’s GC should take note of this decision. [read post]
24 Jan 2009, 2:41 pm
Co. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2008, 5:01 am
Sierra Club v. [read post]
22 Apr 2012, 7:48 am
In 1510610 Ontario Inc. v. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 11:29 am
It can be inferred from the decision that the CJEU agrees, stating as it does that application will require an "exceptional case" [par. 75]. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 12:46 am
These conditions are also cumulative (Gateway v OHIM, C‑57/08 P). [read post]
2 Jun 2021, 8:15 am
The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 8:14 am
Cyberheat CA Appeals Court: Claims Under State Spam Statute Not Preempted by CAN-SPAM – Hypertouch v. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 10:33 am
Indeed, while under Article 52(1)(a) CTMR the application date is the seminal moment for the examination invalidity grounds, examiners and Courts are free to consider any material subsequent to the date of application insofar as it enables conclusions to be drawn with regard to the situation as it was on that date [see the CJEU’s orders in Alcon v OHIM, in Case C-192/03P, and Torresan v OHIM, in Case C-5/10]. [read post]
10 Jun 2022, 9:32 pm
Therefore, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Pharaohs GC, Inc. v New York State Liq. [read post]
10 Jun 2022, 9:32 pm
Therefore, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Pharaohs GC, Inc. v New York State Liq. [read post]
