Search for: "Coke v. State"
Results 81 - 100
of 474
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Oct 2018, 3:42 am
There’s been much written about the Fifth Circuit’s en banc ruling in Alvarez v. [read post]
6 Sep 2018, 8:31 am
The Daily Sketch, 11th December 1913, covering the appeal of Bebb v The Law Society. [read post]
10 Jul 2018, 10:31 am
Roe v. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 3:07 am
Royal Crown Co. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 7:21 am
Co. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 12:48 pm
Bailey v. [read post]
16 Mar 2018, 1:17 pm
In Robinson v. [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 6:40 am
FTC v. [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 6:40 am
FTC v. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 5:50 am
Samuels v. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 1:54 pm
Purple Innovation, LLC v. [read post]
13 Feb 2018, 7:46 am
" New York Times v. [read post]
10 Feb 2018, 9:39 pm
See Golan v. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 3:43 pm
The Court thus remanded his case to the district court, where he would be allowed to prove the truth of his allegations at an evidentiary hearing.James Harold Griffith v. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 3:43 pm
The Court thus remanded his case to the district court, where he would be allowed to prove the truth of his allegations at an evidentiary hearing.James Harold Griffith v. [read post]
18 Oct 2017, 1:25 pm
, Turner v. [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 5:00 am
Adderall), Barbiturates, Cocaine (including powdered “coke” or crystalized “crack”), Hydrocodone (e.g. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 6:49 am
And courts and the USPTO have occasionally applied public use doctrine to find that the widespread use of a mark by the public, like “Coke” for Coca-Cola, “Mac” for Macintosh computers, or “the Evil Empire” for the Yankees, can give rise to protectable trademark rights or at least provide adequate foundation to prevent a competitor from making use of a confusingly similar term. [read post]
5 Sep 2017, 6:52 pm
"); Power Test Petroleum Distr., Inc. v. [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 9:09 am
In 1881, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Egbert v. [read post]
