Search for: "Banning Company v. California"
Results 981 - 1000
of 1,172
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2017, 4:03 pm
Companies will face fines of up to €50m if they persistently fail to remove this illegal content from their sites. [read post]
7 Aug 2024, 10:26 am
[xxv] If a copyright registration is invalid, the company accordingly cannot sue infringers of that work. [read post]
1 Nov 2008, 3:12 am
Weber Company neglects to defend its mark (Class 46) Serbia Balkan anti-counterfeiting - Serbia and Macedonia customs authorities border closures (RelatIP) South Africa Debate about abandonment of the Springbok, South Africa's traditional rugby emblem (Afro-IP) Spain Geographic indications v trade marks: Supreme Court confirms refusal of Spanish trade mark application for VINO DE LA TIERRA ARRIBES DEL DUERO (translation: wine from the land of… [read post]
11 Jan 2024, 2:58 pm
The Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of HB20 in NetChoice, LLC v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 11:56 am
But the target date for the actual decision is always four months after the decision (in this case, that's already January), and even if the final decision was an import ban, there would be a 60-day Presidential Review period before it takes effect.In Germany, there are four Samsung v. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 6:00 am
Specific taxation does not require valuation and as such does not require expensive tax administration, as is the case for ad valorem where vertically integrated companies must compute a value to determine tax liability. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 5:38 pm
Supreme Court found in Staub v. [read post]
11 Jan 2023, 9:51 am
Launched in 2018, Lensa is a product of Prisma Labs — a company based in Sunnyvale, California that recently topped the iOS app store’s free chart. [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 9:53 am
" Finally, I read the Declaration of Robert Spitzer, which is Exhibit E of the California Attorney General's Supplemental Brief in Response to the Court's Order of September, 26, 2022, Duncan v. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 9:17 am
California Supreme Court’s context-based definition in Nike v. [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 3:33 pm
Supreme Court heard argument on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in California, and then on the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law prohibiting the payment of federal benefits to spouses in same-sex marriages. While the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and ransgender) movement is gaining force, the fact is that, as of April 11, 2013,… [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 8:13 am
Group, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 8:13 am
Group, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2017, 4:02 pm
A yachting company has filed libel proceedings against the editor of an o [read post]
8 Feb 2014, 12:18 pm
Copyright: Baker v. [read post]
7 Mar 2008, 2:00 am
: (IPBiz), US: Proposals for the approval of generic biologics under consideration: (Pharmacapsules@Gowlings), US: A paradigm shift in obviousness for pharma, biotech: (IP Law360), US: USPTO’s Bruce Kisliuk addresses ACI Pharma/biotech patent claim drafting and prosecution conference: (Patent Docs), US: New bill to provide biotech companies Sarbanes-Oxley relief: (California Biotech Law Blog), US: Biotech and pharma companies spent millions on… [read post]
21 Sep 2007, 1:49 am
Plaintiffs Await Ruling on Canceled Health Insurance Policies
The Recorder
A California appeals court will hear arguments next week in a closely watched case that challenges an insurance company's practice of rescinding health coverage based on errors in an application. [read post]
28 Apr 2014, 5:13 pm
But in Fifield v. [read post]
28 Apr 2014, 5:13 pm
But in Fifield v. [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 4:00 am
Some Companies’ Political Spending Fuel Voter Suppression. [read post]
