Search for: "Does 1-96" Results 881 - 900 of 2,165
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jan 2017, 5:48 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
As we noted above, see supra Part II, HN19Go to this Headnote in the case.the Declaratory Judgment Act does not demand that a district court decide every declaratory suit brought to it even where the court has the power to do so. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 6:04 am
for “Bottoms; Caps; Hats; Jackets; Shirts; Sweatshirts; T-shirts; Tops," on the ground that the applied-for mark fails to function as a trademark under Sections 1, 2 and 45 of the Lanham Act. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 6:26 am by Dennis Crouch
Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
Finally, the court rejected CG’s contention, relying on Article 1(5) of the e-Commerce Directive, that the e-Commerce Directive does not apply to claims under the DPA. [read post]
31 Dec 2016, 12:36 pm by Kelly Phillips Erb
IRS does not collect comments or messages on this site. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 4:00 am by Paula Bremner
Following the court’s construction findings on other terms (unrelated to the “new construction” issue), it was clear there was no infringement (paragraphs 96, 249, 251). [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 11:03 am by Ronald Collins
How did (does) her Judaism figure into Ginsburg’s life? [read post]
18 Dec 2016, 4:00 am by Administrator
Boutilier, 2016 BCCA 235 (37168) Is an aspect of s. 753(1), and 753(4.1), constitutional. [read post]
14 Dec 2016, 2:56 am
 UK UDR does not protect surface decoration (unlike Community unregistered design right and registered designs). [read post]
9 Dec 2016, 4:34 pm by Mark Theodore
., 365 NLRB No. 1 (December 8, 2016), the employer and union entered into a stipulated election agreement to hold a representation election at the employer. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:15 pm by John Rubin
App. 96 (2008) (holding that counsel was not required to engage in racially discriminatory jury selection). [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:15 pm by John Rubin
App. 96 (2008) (holding that counsel was not required to engage in racially discriminatory jury selection). [read post]