Search for: "Graham v. US" Results 801 - 820 of 1,976
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Oct 2015, 2:37 pm
In Case C-228/03 Gillette Co v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy, the CJEU stated that use that does not create an impression of commercial connection or take unfair advantage of the earlier mark’s distinctive character or repute will be considered honest practice. [read post]
17 May 2010, 9:44 am by Meg Martin
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Graham M. [read post]
30 May 2011, 7:34 am by Steve McConnell
We have recently highlighted a few decisions coming out of Hogan v. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 6:44 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Here is the legal standard for evaluating an excessive force claim, stemming from the Supreme Court's Graham v. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
Perhaps the Supreme Court will limit itself to deciding the relatively benign question of required procedures, parsing constitutional text and arguments in the standard manner.[23] Except that recent history suggests that the Court might instead use SEC v. [read post]
30 May 2024, 12:10 pm by Brett Trout
 GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC that the Rosen-Durling test is out and the tried and true Graham v. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 3:26 am by SHG
At Concurring Opinions, Santa Clara Lawprof Kyle Graham bemoans his plan to engage in empirical analysis of the impact of the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. [read post]
18 May 2010, 10:54 am by Kent Scheidegger
Below the radar in yesterday's news coverage was a proper discussion of international case law in a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Kennedy.No, not Graham v. [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 9:10 am by David
Foremost, the Supreme Court case relied upon is Graham v. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 4:15 am by Russ Bensing
As I explained a few weeks back in my discussion of the US Supreme Court’s pending decisions in Miller v. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am by Ben
Graham claimed that Prince used the “Rastafarian Smoking a Joint” photograph without permission in the New Portraits exhibition. [read post]