Search for: "Figures v. Figures"
Results 801 - 820
of 15,416
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Feb 2016, 6:17 am
Sarver v. [read post]
2 Mar 2018, 4:22 am
At Take Care, Brianne Gorod argues that the oral argument in Janus v. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 3:46 am
Time to put the toys down and figure out something to write for you all. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 6:48 pm
Crossman v. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 12:00 am
Therefore, the word element “Google” in the contested (figurative) mark would be negligible due to its size and position. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 3:05 pm
Henry Sandoz (I'm still figuring out who they are). [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 8:35 am
ZM v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12-14 January 2016. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 8:58 am
On October 15, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Teva v. [read post]
21 Nov 2022, 12:30 am
Adding to the increasingly abundant case law on unconventional EU trade marks (EUTMs), in a judgment (Case T-273/21) from October this year, the General Court found that use of a three-dimensional EUTM with additional figurative and word elements to how such sign was register did not alter the distinctive character of that mark. [read post]
29 May 2024, 1:43 pm
It does indeed mention the "four times" figure. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 1:09 am
In R v Del Basso and Goodwin [2010] EWCA Crim 1119, payment of VAT and other expenses were held irrelevant for the purposes of assessment of benefit. [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 9:16 am
As the story describes the decision in Grant v. [read post]
5 Feb 2022, 5:53 am
"From the gendered prose stylings of Seth Stevenson at Slate — "Ticktock of a Journalist’s Nightmare/The first day of the Palin v. [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 10:59 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 6:45 am
"The case is Brimelow v. [read post]
26 Jun 2010, 5:23 pm
Unfortunately, it can be difficult to figure out just how to remove them. [read post]
8 Jan 2019, 12:56 pm
The indictment concerns Veselnitskaya’s involvement in United States v. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 12:16 am
"Ronald A Katz Technology Licensing L P v. [read post]
11 Jan 2008, 10:19 am
In this case, the DC Circuit figured that the GTMO detainees are not "persons" under the RFRA, because although they were brought to GTMO against their will they don't have enough a connection with the place, and then quoted Johnson v. [read post]
21 Nov 2022, 2:06 pm
See, Matal v. [read post]
