Search for: "Good v. State"
Results 801 - 820
of 45,157
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2010, 10:53 am
While the "first sale" rule certainly applies to goods purchased within the United States and subsequently resold within the United States, at issue here is whether or not the rule applies to goods bought abroad and then resold in the United States, as Costco did in this case. [read post]
28 Oct 2016, 9:40 am
Meuser v. [read post]
7 Dec 2007, 7:33 pm
., and we reprint it in its entirety:IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDATHE FLORIDA BAR,Complainant,v. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 11:08 am
United States, 14-5703 applied the test set out in United States v. [read post]
17 Jan 2009, 11:52 am
Supreme Court decided Herring v. [read post]
23 Jan 2019, 11:14 am
State v. [read post]
5 Mar 2019, 4:09 pm
In Eith v. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 8:24 am
This being so, there was insufficient evidence to establish validity of the two Community trade marks through the acquisition of distinctive character.Revocation of the CTMs for non-use From a review of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and especially the ONEL/OMEL case [Case C-149/11 Leno Merken, noted by the IPKat here], it appeared that the law was as follows: (i) the question of whether there has been ‘genuine use in the Community’ is not to be… [read post]
29 Jun 2014, 10:09 am
When viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the court says the evidence is adequate. [read post]
17 May 2011, 12:28 pm
Canada's Controlled Goods Program is recognized by the United States Department of State as an enhanced security program. [read post]
On Delfi v Estonia… Is it time to adopt a good-Samaritan style exemption? – Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon
23 Jun 2015, 4:56 pm
It should be born in mind that in L’Oréal v eBay the CJEU stated 3 things: “The fact that the service provided by the operator of an online marketplace includes the storage of information transmitted to it by its customer-sellers is not in itself a sufficient ground for concluding that that service falls, in all situations, within the scope of Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31” (at [113]). [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 6:28 am
On February 21, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on a set of stay applications, consolidated under Ohio v. [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 5:19 am
Nor did Janowiec v Russia (2013) App nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09 assist the claimant. [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 12:01 am
Co. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 12:18 pm
Such was the case in McNeal v. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 7:03 am
Supreme Court in South Dakota v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 5:00 am
To get a sense as to how the Justices might rule in Janus v. [read post]
4 Sep 2023, 8:15 am
Russel v Russel stated that situations in which discretion against arbitration should be exercised are ‘few and exceptional. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 10:23 am
D.S. v. [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 11:22 am
I secured it down real good just last week". [read post]
