Search for: "LOWE v. U S"
Results 81 - 100
of 612
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Feb 2022, 8:00 am
S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2022, 4:38 am
These insights are first applied to international law’s post-1945 orthodox narrative and its challenges, constructed as a form of animal husbandry. [read post]
15 Feb 2022, 1:55 am
Top marginal rates range from North Dakota’s 2.9 percent to California’s 13.3 percent. [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 10:22 am
Relying on Wollmer v. [read post]
22 Nov 2021, 3:00 am
The case and the Court’s summary is as follows: County of Butte v. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 11:09 pm
A. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2021, 10:29 am
VS2, LLC v. [read post]
16 Sep 2021, 9:53 am
For that, there's no reason offered other than "Well, it probably had a low chance of success. [read post]
6 Sep 2021, 5:21 am
Grischuk's convenience. [read post]
27 Aug 2021, 1:14 pm
(Dissent: The value of the settlement was low, but the majority fails to appreciate that the claims the class was settling were exceedingly lame.) [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 2:06 pm
Cotter, Nominal Damages—and Nominal Damages Workarounds—in Intellectual Property Law TransUnion v. [read post]
5 Aug 2021, 5:41 am
They previously were amici in Google v. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 8:21 am
So that’s a bit of a pickle.] [read post]
28 Jul 2021, 3:50 am
The payroll tax gap is low as well for the same reason. [read post]
19 Jul 2021, 12:00 am
California and Carpenter v. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 10:58 am
Prior to TRIPS, international IP protection did not factor in the multilateral trading system’s legal framework, and the GATT is mostly silent on the relationship between international trade and IP rights. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 11:36 am
The NCAA didn't just lose in today's Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 7:21 am
Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U. [read post]
10 Jun 2021, 12:25 pm
The Court also found that the signs are conceptually different, since a stylized letter ‘h’, or two interlaced letters ‘u’, could be perceived in Huawei’s mark, whilst the stylized letters of the initials of Chanel’s founder (Coco Chanel) can be discerned in Chanel’s mark.Thus, the General Court held that the marks at issue are different. [read post]