Search for: "Figures v. Figures"
Results 901 - 920
of 15,426
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Nov 2009, 8:28 pm
Supreme Court will rule in the Bilski v. [read post]
10 May 2019, 1:24 am
, Inc v Jen, Chi [2019] SGIPOS 3. [read post]
8 May 2012, 3:00 am
Feinman is worth reading just to try to figure out who did what to whom. [read post]
8 Nov 2013, 10:02 am
Hupp v. [read post]
18 Apr 2018, 9:13 am
” * People v. [read post]
7 Dec 2007, 2:01 pm
(P.S. - Was I right or what about People v. [read post]
30 Nov 2007, 8:34 am
Try to figure what the next two segments have to do with each other. [read post]
24 Jun 2008, 1:10 pm
MCKINNEY V. [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 10:01 am
., Stevens v. [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 10:30 am
Interestingly, this is a figure which is comparable to the general damages awarded to Elton John by the Court in the flagship case of John v MGN Ltd [1995] EWCA Civ 23, when taking inflation into account. [read post]
18 Apr 2018, 5:10 am
"This is the case we talked about here yesterday, where I said something similar (minus the disrespect).A "hobby-horse" is, figuratively, a favorite topic (Mystal is referring to originalism). [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 8:30 pm
Figure 2 illustrates the prior art; Figure 5 is an embodiment of the invention. [read post]
16 Jan 2021, 4:56 am
The fact that the Board had considered that the relevant public would view the figurative element as secondary vis-à-vis the verbal elements of that sign could have provided the Applicant with further opportunity to argue that there’s no likelihood of confusion, due to the figurative nature of Applicant’s sign. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 8:44 am
The Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Manushi Sangathan v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 12:41 pm
He flunked out of Seton Hall law school, but he still wants his law degree, and met with a lawyer in the show’s last episode to figure out how he can get it. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 1:16 pm
The ruling came in the case of Register, et al., v. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 7:36 pm
It seems to me that the only coherent way to deal with the Supreme Court precedent is to say that one looks to the underlying statute to figure out whether fees are defined as part of costs, but not to figure out who gets them, since if you did that the theoretical availability of fees would be a logical impossibility--jam tomorrow, and jam yesterday, but never jam today. [read post]
19 Oct 2010, 4:01 am
This is only the third case in which such a finding has been made – the other two are Pfeifer v Austria (2007) 48 EHRR 175 and Petrina v Romania Judgment of 14 October 2008). [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 9:19 am
Rather, the Westboro defendants had engaged in a vicous verbal assault on a private figure. [read post]
17 Mar 2021, 3:49 am
Nfinity IP, LLC v. [read post]
