Search for: "Figures v. Figures"
Results 7981 - 8000
of 15,524
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jun 2016, 9:40 am
Versa v. [read post]
5 Apr 2018, 1:02 pm
As I reported in my article posted on January 2018, in South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority v. [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 10:09 am
In SONY v. [read post]
28 Feb 2024, 3:54 pm
Doe v. [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 2:07 pm
The figure only looks at 5-4 decisions in these three terms. [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 6:27 am
United States v. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 3:17 pm
United States v. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 3:17 pm
United States v. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 9:19 pm
" Kumar v American Tr. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 6:33 am
.), (C.L.S.) v. [read post]
18 Jul 2008, 4:31 pm
By Dave Lanferman Silicon Valley Taxpayers Ass’n v. [read post]
28 Jun 2024, 2:31 pm
Can you first briefly explain the landmark Court ruling Chevron v. [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 4:57 am
First, A.Z. is a well-known religious figure who goes by the names Alyce Zeoli or Catherine Burroughs. . . . [read post]
29 Aug 2016, 2:21 pm
See Bauer v. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 11:00 am
Cohn v. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 4:00 am
V. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 10:31 am
Any general claims about distinctiveness must take into account: eligibility for protection/scope of protection; reality v. policy; words v. non-words; perception by single consumers v. aggregate; consumer search costs approach v. product goodwill approach; US v. [read post]
21 Feb 2022, 12:24 am
The award for harassment was included in the £10,000 figure [36]. [read post]
4 Jun 2009, 6:15 am
Hapeman, 229 A.D.2d 807, 810, 646 N.Y.S.2d 583; Smith v. [read post]
3 Oct 2010, 1:57 am
A design will have distinctiveness and protection when it can be shown that the design has acquired a secondary meaning (Wal-Mart Stores v Samara Bros (2000)). [read post]
