Search for: "W & W Holdings, LLC" Results 1141 - 1160 of 1,514
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 May 2016, 1:17 pm
The narrow interpretation of the CFAA holds that the term `without authorization’ only reaches conduct by outsiders who did not have permission to access the plaintiff's computer. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 8:57 am by paperstreet
The court followed its earlier decision in LVRC Holdings LLC v. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:01 pm by John Dean
” Judge Bertelsman found most persuasive the holding from the (en banc) Ninth Circuit in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. [read post]
11 Jul 2021, 11:05 am by Eugene Volokh
We find, based on the ample evidence in this record, that NIGGA does not function to identify Applicant as the sole source of clothing bearing the word …, and we further hold that the refusal to register did not violate the First Amendment because it did not discriminate against the message conveyed by the proposed mark…. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 6:00 pm by Duncan
If so … (Class 46) Poland Reputation’s rating (Class 46) Polish patent attorneys’ professionalism (Class 46) South Africa Orange miniskirt debacle less filling (Patent Baristas) (Class 46) Spain Supreme Court rules on marks consisting of colours ‘per se’ (Class 46) Tunisia Tunisia lines up for copyright training (Afro-IP) United Kingdom EWHC: KCI negative pressure patent valid and infringed: KCI Licensing Inc and others v Smith & Nephew plc… [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 3:08 am
(Class 46)   Poland Reputation's rating (Class 46) Polish patent attorneys’ professionalism (Class 46)   South Africa Orange miniskirt debacle less filling (Patent Baristas) (Class 46)   Spain Supreme Court rules on marks consisting of colours ‘per se’ (Class 46)   Tunisia Tunisia lines up for copyright training (Afro-IP)   United Kingdom EWHC: KCI negative pressure patent valid and infringed:  KCI Licensing Inc and others v Smith & Nephew… [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 2:58 am by Marie Louise
Stoughton Trailers, LLC (Docket Report) District Court E D Texas: Unenforceable patent is ‘unpatented’ for false marking claim purposes: Promote Innovation  v Medtronic (EDTexweblog.com) ITC reverses ALJ, finds no violation in Inv. [read post]