Search for: "State v. Mark"
Results 1101 - 1120
of 19,778
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2018, 6:00 am
Petitioner Mark Janus is a state employee whose unit is represented by a public-sector union (Union), one of the respondents. [read post]
17 May 2024, 12:37 pm
Brown v. [read post]
5 Jun 2022, 7:21 pm
If, as expected, the Republican Supreme Court this month votes to overturn the Roe v. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 7:53 am
This is the "Catch-22" with any patent application disclosed to the public during the USPTO patent prosecution proceedings in the United States. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 3:37 am
" Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. [read post]
16 Jun 2008, 1:58 pm
Law.com's Mark Hamblett discusses the Williams v. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 4:30 am
This year marks the 50th anniversary of Graham v. [read post]
9 Jul 2021, 7:18 am
Democratic National Committee set the path for the six-justice majority of the Supreme Court to reject challenges to two Arizona laws.It marks a major victory for states that seek to innovate or tinker with their election laws — to expand them or to contract them. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 8:03 am
To the surprise of no one who has been paying attention, the June 26, 2013 United States Supreme Court opinions in the cases of United States v. [read post]
12 Jan 2022, 3:00 am
" Spotify AB v. [read post]
26 Aug 2013, 4:15 pm
In the recent case of Continental Teves AG & Co v. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 7:31 am
See Dukes v. [read post]
31 Aug 2021, 4:04 pm
The report marks the completion of a study conducted by the Office in response to an April 2020 request by Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy following the Supreme Court’s decision in Allen v. [read post]
12 Apr 2019, 1:43 pm
YSL v. [read post]
2 May 2011, 8:05 am
” See Slip Opinion, at 18 (citing Hines v. [read post]
10 May 2019, 6:05 am
Mr Justice Arnold agreed, but also stated that the restriction was justified. [read post]
4 Dec 2020, 3:21 am
KGAA v. [read post]
22 Feb 2009, 6:24 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 3:26 am
Lacteos de Honduras S.A. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 10:51 am
In relation to inadmissible evidence the Court stated that the Board of Appeal rightly upheld the Cancellation Division’s decision on whether the applicant had adduced evidence of Red Bull’s actual knowledge of the use of the contested mark in Austria. and rejected the Asolo’s argument.Similarity between alcoholic drinks and energy drinksThe second plea, related to likelihood of confusion, which requires similarity between both the marks at issue and the… [read post]
