Search for: "State v. Felde"
Results 81 - 91
of 91
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 May 2009, 5:24 am
’ (China Law Blog) Europe ECJ finds similar marks on wine and glasses not likely to cause confusion: Waterford Wedgewood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) AG Colomer opines in Maple leaf trade mark battle: joined cases American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates SA (IPKat) (Excess Copyright) CFI: Restitutio and time limits: how does the law stand now for CTMs? [read post]
10 Jun 2022, 5:01 am
It accepts that the different policy goal, articulated in the Supreme Court’s Turner Broadcasting v. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 8:27 am
Graham v. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 2:00 pm
(As Harold Feld at Public Knowledge explains, turning off part of the telephone network also violates the Federal Communications Act.)BART claims that it was acting within the scope of a 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 7:18 am
The high court in in 2012 dismissed as “improvidently granted review” First American v. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 3:00 am
" Amchem Prods., Inc. v. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 1:18 am
So, during oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Monday in Astrue v. [read post]
12 Nov 2007, 9:04 am
No troll cartoons, unfortunately, but it was fun to watch Hilda talk about the SanDisk v. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 9:51 am
Sen. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 1:57 pm
Indeed, kids do a lot of copying that isn’t even noticed as copying: trace the letters to learn how to write; instruction where we have students watch then do, which is to say copy, then teach, which is to say have others copy you; perhaps this can often be distinguished as processes v. outputs, but copying letters is copying outputs, not just tasks. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 12:34 am
Time to check your crystal ball to see what it portends for the legal industry in 2015 – or you can just head over to the Business of Law Blog to see what others think. [read post]
