Search for: "State v. Gray"
Results 1041 - 1060
of 1,841
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 May 2010, 5:16 pm
- Dallas lawyer Peter Vogel of Gardere Wynne Sewell on his Vogel Internet, Information Technology and e-Discovery Blog Bank Failures: A State-by-State Affair - Ohio attorney Kevin LaCroix of OakBridge Insurance Services in his blog, The D & O Diary When a Promise Is Not a Promise in College Athletics - Los Angeles lawyer Jeffrey Kravitz of Fox Rothschild on the firm's Sports Law Scoreboard [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 2:50 pm
The case now gets sent back down for still more litigation-unless the Gray County prosecutor, Lynn Switzer, agrees to allow the testing to proceed. [read post]
11 Jan 2010, 4:08 pm
Inc. v Jersey Shore Chicken (GRAY On Claims)(Patently-O) CAFC: Refusing to stay preliminary relief pending appeal: Bushnell v. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 3:11 am
Microsoft (Patently-O) (Patentology) (IPBiz) (Gray on Claims) CAFC clarifies meaning of ‘exclusive licensee’: WiAV Solutions v. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 5:46 am
Sidemans and Company Nigeria Limited v Calag Capital Limited (Afro-IP) Poland Personal circumstances in trade mark registration (Class 46) South Africa FIFA v Metcash trade mark case – Owen Dean’s response (Afro-IP) South Africa 1 – Ambush Marketers 0: legal framework to help FIFA and 2010 World Cup sponsors protect their rights (Managing IP) Switzerland New developments in Swiss patent law (IP Frontline) Federal… [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 4:46 am
Sidemans and Company Nigeria Limited v Calag Capital Limited (Afro-IP) Poland Personal circumstances in trade mark registration (Class 46) South Africa FIFA v Metcash trade mark case - Owen Dean's response (Afro-IP) South Africa 1 - Ambush Marketers 0: legal framework to help FIFA and 2010 World Cup sponsors protect their rights (Managing IP) Switzerland New developments in Swiss patent law (IP Frontline) Federal Administrative Court finds PARK AVENUE not descriptive for… [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 4:46 am
Sidemans and Company Nigeria Limited v Calag Capital Limited (Afro-IP) Poland Personal circumstances in trade mark registration (Class 46) South Africa FIFA v Metcash trade mark case - Owen Dean's response (Afro-IP) South Africa 1 - Ambush Marketers 0: legal framework to help FIFA and 2010 World Cup sponsors protect their rights (Managing IP) Switzerland New developments in Swiss patent law (IP Frontline) Federal Administrative Court finds PARK AVENUE not descriptive for… [read post]
28 May 2019, 11:42 am
Supreme Court held in Star Athletica, LLC v. [read post]
20 May 2009, 1:39 pm
Indiana State Police v. [read post]
17 May 2009, 11:02 am
In Pro Football v. [read post]
15 Oct 2012, 8:17 am
As any lawyer will tell you, eliminate the gray with a contract. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 10:37 am
Quantlab Technologies Ltd. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 10:53 am
(Roe’s companion, Doe v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 2:20 am
(IP Dragon) Bridgestone v Bull – prior design defence in China (Class 99) Yao Ming wants to reign supreme over Yao Ming era (IP Dragon) An SME handbook for China. [read post]
13 Sep 2009, 5:38 pm
Lapine v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 1:47 pm
Texas Data v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 11:35 am
But the way to answer them is not with a "cops-are-Nazis" festival, which -- thanks to an immature, political and grandstanding State's Attorney -- is what the Freddie Gray prosecutions have become. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 3:23 am
: Catnic Components Ltd & Anor v Hill and Smith Ltd (Spicy IP) United States US Patents BPAI rules for ex parte appeals: Request for comment and notice of roundtable (Patently-O) Bilski and Warsaw share insights (AwakenIP) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: False marking statute applies on a per article basis: Forest Group, Inc v Bon Tool Co (GRAY On Claims) (EPLAW) (Washington State Patent Law Blog) You say tomato... [read post]
6 Dec 2022, 3:45 am
Key Findings: Excessive tax rates on cigarettes induce substantial black and gray market movement of tobacco products into high-tax states from low-tax states or foreign sources. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 6:57 pm
” United States v. [read post]
