Search for: "LaBelle v. LaBelle" Results 9381 - 9400 of 12,213
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Dec 2013, 4:26 am
 Had Asplin J reached the opposite conclusion, and allowed the use of restickered REGURIN labels on these facts, importers of pharma products would be falling over themselves to emulate Doncaster's actions and the prospects of manufacturers of pharma producers such as  Madaus deriving any benefits from their trade marks following the expiry of their patents (as was the case with the patent for trospium chloride, which expired in 2009) would be grim.Happier days in court for… [read post]
19 Oct 2014, 4:42 am by Ben
 "Plaintiffs ask the court to take judicial notice of the order granting summary judgment in Flo & Eddie Inc. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 5:17 pm by Larry
Take, for example, Roe v. [read post]
24 Dec 2017, 4:08 pm by Larry
The fact that it is Christmas makes a discussion, however brief, of Rubies Costume Co. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 11:10 pm
(and one of this Kat’s favorite spicy sauces)In this context, trade dress is defined as the “… plurality of operative elements; image elements, including, among others, the size, design, color, shape layout, label, packaging, ornamentation or any other that when combined, distinguish products or services on the market …”. [read post]
28 Aug 2024, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
It is thus an off-label use, and potentially an ineffective and/or unsafe one. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 5:32 pm
 Dominic's final remarks related to the latest developments in the ongoing Fujifilm v Abbvie proceedings (see AmeriKat reports here), where the Arrow declarations sought are being used to clear the path with effective lifetime clearance. [read post]
29 Oct 2024, 4:00 am by Eric Segall
It should be remebered that only Justice Thomas resorted to originalism in SFFA v. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 5:45 am by Guest Blogger
PollvogtThis is the final post in the Symposiumon Unconstitutional Animus.While the constitutional concept of animus was born in a case about discrimination against hippies, and was significantly elaborated in a case about persons with cognitive disabilities, since the Court’s 1996 decision in Romer v. [read post]