Search for: "Matter of Mark T."
Results 9441 - 9460
of 16,587
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jun 2013, 7:24 pm
How you say it matters — isn’t that at least half the game when it comes to “bullying,” after all? [read post]
30 May 2013, 10:02 pm
I’ll return to the holding order matter. [read post]
30 May 2013, 1:34 pm
Don’t believe us? [read post]
30 May 2013, 12:44 pm
But what of other matters? [read post]
30 May 2013, 12:44 pm
But what of other matters? [read post]
30 May 2013, 5:29 am
No matter how carefully you tried to enunciate the first word, people always needed you to repeat it and then to spell it. [read post]
29 May 2013, 7:30 am
The new provisions broadly reflect the previous common law position, with the exception that the defence of honest opinion is now not required to be on a matter of public interest. [read post]
29 May 2013, 4:30 am
Those emails don’t look good, and they don’t work. [read post]
28 May 2013, 10:32 am
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). [read post]
28 May 2013, 5:08 am
Bobby’s post from Friday argued that “the current shadow war approach to counterterrorism doesn’t really require an armed-conflict predicate–or an AUMF, for that matter. [read post]
27 May 2013, 5:42 am
We don’t ask how many people actually saw/heard other forms of broadcast advertising), it wasn’t an ad and thus AFL’s summary judgment motion had to be denied. [read post]
27 May 2013, 2:44 am
In sum, price advertisements matter. [read post]
24 May 2013, 10:46 am
Id. at 780 (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
23 May 2013, 8:50 am
Rebellion argued that Rogers didn’t apply because Stardock was a competitor labeling its commercial good with a confusingly similar mark; Stardock even filed a trademark application for the mark. [read post]
23 May 2013, 5:00 am
Motion in limine decisions are usually a matter of checking off this or that from a long list. [read post]
22 May 2013, 5:54 am
Indeed, Kwikset based its reasoning on the fact that “[t]o some consumers, processes and places of origin matter. [read post]
21 May 2013, 7:49 am
Beck at Federal Regulations Advisor, The BLT’s Tony Mauro, Paul Daly at Administrative Law Matters, and Jaclyn Belczyk at JURIST. [read post]
21 May 2013, 6:45 am
The Evolution 3GS mark was incontestable, giving it “presumptive[]” strength (ugh again—no, incontestability means irrebuttable nondescriptiveness: as a matter of law, if it’s not generic, it functions as a mark, but that doesn’t make it a strong mark, so that’s wrong in two distinct ways). [read post]
20 May 2013, 1:39 pm
But don’t expect the controversy to end here. [read post]
18 May 2013, 6:04 am
I couldn’t My fellow campers filtered back into the cabin. [read post]
