Search for: "Run It Once Inc" Results 881 - 900 of 2,446
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Mar 2017, 6:31 am by Jim Sedor
A variety of progressive groups who oppose President Trump’s agenda have gathered at least once a week at the building, lining up on the sidewalk to wave signs and shout messages. [read post]
  The defendants argued that the statute only restricted initial transfer and that once the case was in the MDL, the issue was moot, and that any attempt to transfer the case back would be “overruling” the JPML. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 9:30 am by Legal Beagle
[4]        This opinion focuses upon obligations which are subject to the 5‑year prescriptive period and the effect on the running of that period of sections 11(3) and 6(4) of the 1973 Act. [read post]
26 Feb 2017, 6:37 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
Legal marketing has begun to run amok in many major cities in Canada. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 12:04 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  The trial court then held that, without the incontestable registration, B&B was once again bound by the earlier trial result finding that it had achieved no secondary meaning and thus no protectable mark. [read post]
18 Feb 2017, 9:05 pm by Phyllis Entis
Inc., describes the company’s products during a trade show. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 1:34 pm by Bill Marler
  It appears that the strawberries entered the US in Norfolk into VLM USA’s possession and then were transferred to Preferred Freezers Storage, Inc. in Chesapeake into Patagonia’s possession. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 4:09 am by Jon Hyman
He nominated someone eminently qualified to run the Department of Labor. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 4:09 am by Jon Hyman
He nominated someone eminently qualified to run the Department of Labor. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 12:57 pm by Richard S. Zackin
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in US Airways, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 12:56 pm by Richard S. Zackin
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in US Airways, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 8:11 am by Marty Miller
” The cartridges are identical, but the Return Program Cartridges are sold “subject to a single-use/no-resale restriction: the buyer may not reuse the cartridge after the toner runs out and may not transfer it to anyone but Lexmark once it is used, i.e., the buyer must ‘return’ the cartridge ‘only’ to Lexmark. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 8:11 am by Marty Miller
” The cartridges are identical, but the Return Program Cartridges are sold “subject to a single-use/no-resale restriction: the buyer may not reuse the cartridge after the toner runs out and may not transfer it to anyone but Lexmark once it is used, i.e., the buyer must ‘return’ the cartridge ‘only’ to Lexmark. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 8:11 am by Marty Miller
” The cartridges are identical, but the Return Program Cartridges are sold “subject to a single-use/no-resale restriction: the buyer may not reuse the cartridge after the toner runs out and may not transfer it to anyone but Lexmark once it is used, i.e., the buyer must ‘return’ the cartridge ‘only’ to Lexmark. [read post]
7 Feb 2017, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
As I shall explain, Scalia was right and Gorsuch is wrong.The Chevron Doctrine and Justice ScaliaThe Chevron doctrine gets its name from a 1984 case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2017, 11:20 am by Ron Coleman
Each has been excluded by a certifier from employing its legally protected certification mark in ways that seem to run counter to the certification mark’s purposes of consumer protection and promotion of competition. [read post]
6 Feb 2017, 3:26 am by Peter Mahler
Minority Shareholder Wins Preliminary Injunction Applying Shareholders’ Agreement to Later-Acquired Affiliates Ciment v Spantran, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 30039(U) [Sup Ct NY County Jan. 6, 2017]. [read post]