Search for: "Fields v. A S"
Results 8681 - 8700
of 17,269
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2022, 2:54 pm
Co. v. [read post]
24 Nov 2015, 1:33 pm
The case is State v. [read post]
24 Nov 2015, 1:33 pm
The case is State v. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 7:31 am
Law Offices of Curtis V. [read post]
30 Nov 2006, 9:25 am
De Landtsheer - the AG's OpinionThe Opinion of Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi in Case C-381/05 De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA has now been posted on the Curia website, alas not in English. [read post]
6 Apr 2017, 9:27 am
Supreme Court decision in Birchfield v. [read post]
4 Jan 2023, 1:14 pm
Mystery Ranch, Ltd. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2023, 1:14 pm
Mystery Ranch, Ltd. v. [read post]
20 Nov 2023, 1:41 pm
How Spireon Changed the Playing Field Previously, a trademark Applicant wishing to show that an Opposer’s trademark was too commercially weak to prevent registration of the applicant’s trademark would need to show that any third-party registrations were actively in use to qualify that evidence as relevant and probative. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 4:18 pm
Niloo / Shutterstock.com In Hallmark Cards Inc. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 4:49 am
” Cole v. [read post]
21 May 2012, 8:15 am
(February 2011), Sylvester v. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 10:29 am
In doing so, they generally focus on: (1) whether the question at issue is within the conventional experience of judges or whether it involves technical or policy considerations within the agency’s particular field of expertise; (2) whether the question at issue is particularly within the agency’s discretion; (3) whether there exists a substantial danger of inconsistent rulings; and (4) whether a prior application to the agency has been made. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 9:41 am
In his reference, the Judge trotted through the English court's and CJEU's case law Article 3(a) - Takeda, Farmitalia, Daiichi, Yeda, Medeva (and its progeny), Actavis v Sanofi, Eli Lilly v HGS, Actavis v Boehringer, - and found that it was clear that something more was required, but what that "something" was was not clear. [read post]
10 Jun 2020, 7:05 pm
Alltel Corp. d/b/a Verizon Wireless v City of Jackson, MS, 2020 WL 3086249 (S.D. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 4:30 am
Supreme Court, including the Virginia v. [read post]
10 Aug 2022, 10:05 am
In Dobbs v. [read post]
16 May 2017, 4:03 am
” People v. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 10:59 am
Michael Hayes v. [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 4:00 am
For example, in Graat v. [read post]
