Search for: "In re Mark C. (1992)"
Results 81 - 100
of 214
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Mar 2017, 11:28 am
Bridget Jones (Renee Zellweger) looks for love in all the wrong places until she meets up (again) with a childhood friend, attorney Mark Darcy, who seems to be involved with colleague attorney Natasha (Embetz Davidtz).Career Woman (1936). [read post]
15 Feb 2017, 11:30 pm
That’s why we’re dependent on people who come from somewhere else. [read post]
17 Jan 2017, 11:00 am
Martin in 1992. [read post]
6 Jan 2017, 6:28 am
EVID. 801(c)(2); United States v. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 3:41 pm
If they’re trying to hide the fact that they’re running ads, mission accomplished. [read post]
15 Jul 2016, 6:38 am
C., it faces little public awareness of its activities. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 6:13 am
Sometime between 1992 and 1995, Prolacto began using an Indian Girl design in some of its stores and licensees’ stores in Mexico. [read post]
11 Apr 2016, 6:25 am
In In re Mark C., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th 520, Division Two followed its earlier decision in In re Erica R., supra, 240 Cal.App.4th 907&n [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 12:00 am
What happens if you’re not? [read post]
24 Dec 2015, 8:20 am
The legislature chose not to punish FDA-regulated activity, but the court nullified that legislative decision, with practically no discussion.In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Product Liability Litigation, 804 F.3d 633 (3d Cir. 2015). [read post]
15 Dec 2015, 6:01 am
, Lawrence Herman, Trans-Pacific Trade and the Intellectual Property Challenge Mark Summerfield, Patents and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 8:17 am
She last appeared as one of four residuary beneficiaries in the 1992 will. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
., 587 A.2d 702, 704 (Pa. 1991) (emphasis added) (citation and quotation marks omitted).Another equivalent standard for punitive damages is that the plaintiff is “substantially certain” to be injured. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 12:37 pm
Washington team’s marks—long time registered, compared to In re Tam where the examiner denied registrations. [read post]
27 Aug 2015, 6:00 am
In other words, section 121(1)(c) is not designed to stop improper transactions (which is the core of the bribery provision). [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm
Is that then res judicata with respect to the other? [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
So far many plaintiffs have had trouble coming up with factual support to back such allegations – and sometimes we’re not even sure why they’re making them. [read post]
13 May 2015, 4:37 am
Against this body of case law, PCCM pointed to judgments in several other common law jurisdictions, including: Ireland: C&A Modes v C&A (Waterford) Ltd which Lord Neuberger said [39] shows a “misapprehension” of the reasoning in Crazy Horse; Canada: Orkin Exterminating Co Inc v Pestco Co of Canada Ltd, which was “of no assistance” [40] since the US-based plaintiff had thousands of customers in CanadaNew Zealand: Dominion Rent A Car Ltd v Budget… [read post]
11 May 2015, 10:16 am
C. [read post]
8 May 2015, 9:24 am
The court noted that invalidating the registration would only shift the burden to Clearly Food to show that its claimed mark was a mark, and found that Clearly Food could do so. [read post]
