Search for: "United States v. Mark" Results 1001 - 1020 of 9,472
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jun 2022, 12:47 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Some background Until 2008, Lehman Brothers1 was one of the largest investment banks in the United States, with hundreds of billions of dollars in assets under management and more than 25,000 employees in offices worldwide. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 9:38 am by admin
Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit handed down a ruling earlier this month in United States v. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 4:19 am by Edith Roberts
United States and Hughes v. [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 11:51 am by National Indian Law Library
United States (common law adoption)* State Courts BulletinCases featured:Williams v. [read post]
3 Oct 2019, 12:15 pm by Eric Goldman
This is a clean and decisive ruling, but it’s not the first time that a court has used Section 230 to reject an RTBF-style claim in the United States. [read post]
17 Jun 2007, 11:27 am
However, in the United States, we have 50 states (akin to provinces in other countries) that have their own local laws governing statewide trademark registration, unfair competition and other issues. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 6:37 am by Andrew Hamm
., the Center for Migration Studies will host a series of discussions on United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2014, 7:08 am by Timothy P. Flynn
 The expected outcome in the case, considering United States v Windsor, is that the Commonwealth's ban will be declared unconstitutional.In announcing the policy reversal, AG Herring applauded the litigants even though as a state legislator, he voted for the ban. [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 7:53 am by christopher
LEXIS 142726, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, December 12, 2011, Decided; December 12, 2011, Filed 11 CV 953 (VB), Reporter: 2011 U.S. [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 3:47 am
Petitioner Coca-Cola proved that it owns the two marks in India and has sold soft drinks in the United States under the marks, and it therefore was entitled to bring a statutory cause of action under Section 14(3). [read post]