Search for: "Marks v. State "
Results 8781 - 8800
of 21,695
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jul 2016, 8:39 am
Even if the providers never register them, federal and state laws may recognize and protect them as “common law” marks. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 4:05 am
Political Identity v. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 3:03 am
TBMP § 1113.01.Early Recognition claimed the right to exclusive use of the subject mark for the entire United States, except for the County of San Francisco within the state of California. [read post]
22 Jul 2016, 7:55 pm
By 2008 U.S. courts deemed the area to be under de facto sovereignty of the United States (Boumediene v. [read post]
22 Jul 2016, 11:16 am
’State v. [read post]
22 Jul 2016, 9:05 am
” Tell me he didn’t put quotation marks around exceptionalism! [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 1:54 pm
Consider, for example, Riggs v. [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 11:43 am
Bricker has been named the Commission’s Interim Chief Accountant responsible for the activities of the Office of the Chief Accountant as James V. [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 11:26 am
Beachbody, LLC v. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 2:44 pm
” Delivering the majority decision in Voisine v United States, Justice Elena Kagan eloquently stated: “Reckless conduct, which requires the conscious disregard of a known risk, is not an accident: It involves a deliberate decision to endanger another. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 1:48 pm
”AFTG-TG, 689 F.3d at 1363 (citing Marks v. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 11:20 am
United States v. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 11:20 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 6:54 pm
The reasoning of the CJEU in GAT v LuK was equally applicable here. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 6:07 pm
Diaz v. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 6:07 pm
Diaz v. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 9:30 am
But 50 years on, how deep and long-lasting are the rights associated with Miranda v. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 7:59 am
In another recent case, Public Impact, LLC v. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 7:36 am
This argument “misses the mark,” the Eighth Circuit declared. [read post]
17 Jul 2016, 10:00 pm
Trademark law states that "[a] product's color standing alone may qualify for trademark protection.Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
