Search for: "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, interested parties"
Results 801 - 820
of 1,438
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Oct 2014, 1:16 pm
Those of us who follow these things were deeply interested in how expansively they’d read Pom Wonderful. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 3:29 pm
A New York Probate Lawyer said this action stems from plaintiff's attempt to purchase certain real property, located at Bronx County ("subject property"), in August 2005, from four members of a family. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 8:49 am
There was direct evidence of $124,910 paid to the defend [read post]
26 Sep 2014, 6:21 am
Supp. 2d 309 (E.D.Va. 2009), by contrast, allowed a similar claim to proceed where the defendant, who had previous ties to the plaintiff, “was presumably familiar with the terms of [plaintiff’s] agreement and with the scope of authority granted to licensees. [read post]
20 Sep 2014, 1:06 pm
This form was particularly interesting for two reasons. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 4:00 am
The Court disposed of the case under the existing provisions of the 1995 EU Privacy Directive.) [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 3:30 am
The two owners, Roopnarine Singh and Edward Radburn, hold 55% and 45% stock interests, respectively. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 5:01 am
Then, “once the trial court revises the non-compete to include only those areas reasonably necessary to protect plaintiff’s business interests,” that court must decide whether the covenant has been violated. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 10:38 am
The Court emphasized that in light of this direct competition, that Gnosis’ falsely advertised folate product cost less than Merck’s Metafolin exacerbated the extent of injury to Merck.[9] Thus, in the most interesting facet of the Second Circuit’s decision, it held that when “a plaintiff has met its burden of proving deliberate deception in the context of a two-player market, it is appropriate to utilize a presumption of injury. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 10:30 am
The Court emphasized that in light of this direct competition, that Gnosis’ falsely advertised folate product cost less than Merck’s Metafolin exacerbated the extent of injury to Merck.[9] Thus, in the most interesting facet of the Second Circuit’s decision, it held that when “a plaintiff has met its burden of proving deliberate deception in the context of a two-player market, it is appropriate to utilize a presumption of injury. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 9:00 am
Holland’s work for Carlyle … will be in direct competition with the plaintiff’s business of marketing REITs … to financial advisors because that was the business Mr. [read post]
4 Aug 2014, 4:35 am
Among other things, an interesting point concerns the probative value of plaintiff employees’ witness evidence about members of the public being utterly confused by the alleged use of Victoria’s Secret’s “pink”. [read post]
31 Jul 2014, 6:03 am
“‘Having established falsity, the plaintiff should be entitled to both injunctive and monetary relief, regardless of the extent of impact on consumer purchasing decisions’” (citation omitted). [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 6:49 am
“Nowhere does plaintiff seek to enjoin or hold Yelp liable for the statements of third parties (i.e., reviewers) on its website. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 6:00 am
However, the Missouri Supreme Court declared that a defendant/third-party plaintiff can deny liability to the plaintiff, but also assert a third party claim against others who would be liable to the defendant if it is adjudge liable to the plaintiff. [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 2:08 pm
Further, even if the unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s branded products may have helped the Defendants gain “crucial credibility during the initial phases” of a purchasing decision, Mobil Oil Corp., 818 F.2d at 259, there is no allegation that such credibility was acquired on account of the similarity between the parties’ respective trademarks, as is required to state a claim sounding in “initial interest confusion. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 12:45 pm
It claimed the order could not be made against a non-party to the main action. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 3:51 am
Under this standard, the court of appeals upheld the trial court’s denial of directed verdict to Acuity pointing to testimony that plaintiffs desired to add coverage for the building and that plaintiffs believed they had procured such insurance. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 8:02 am
” The Wyman case was decided on somewhat unique circumstances because the plaintiff Trustees did not have a direct relationship with the defendant developer/builder. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 7:00 am
Primus’ insurance policy requires it to first consent to any settlement, for which it has shown no interest to date. [read post]
