Search for: "Coca v. People"
Results 101 - 120
of 207
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Sep 2016, 11:14 am
More systematic research bears this out in some ways: recognition/recall is better; to the point that consumers shorten Chevrolet to Chevy and Coca-Cola to Coke. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 3:55 am
It also confirmed that similar packaging increases people’s likelihood of buying the product.That’s the nub. [read post]
24 Mar 2017, 10:05 am
Design patent v. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 5:19 am
Corp. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 1:37 pm
ESA v. [read post]
9 Jan 2021, 5:37 pm
Dept. of Ins. v. [read post]
6 Oct 2009, 6:19 am
On the first day of its fall term, the Court heard hourlong arguments in Mohawk Industries Inc. v. [read post]
5 May 2016, 5:38 am
Martin v. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 1:28 pm
” Similarly in Rosenberger v. [read post]
14 Nov 2015, 7:42 am
“It’s not as simple as people think,” he says. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 1:02 pm
” “Brands use logos to impress values, functions, and hierarchies on millions of people. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 12:10 pm
The jiplp weblog carries a pre-publication chance to read the Current Intelligence notes of Joel Smith and Joanna Silver (Herbert Smith LLP) on L'Oréal SA v eBay International and of fellow Kat Matt Fisher (UCL) on Albert Packaging v Nampak. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 8:24 am
The Coca-Cola Company v. [read post]
22 Sep 2007, 2:31 pm
McVerry on September 13 in Prowel v. [read post]
22 Feb 2013, 7:07 am
Bad faith actor v. good faith actor. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 7:30 am
Interestingly, Much of the argument concerned a 2009 ruling, Wyeth v. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 3:21 pm
Felix Wu: If some people are confused, then you’re mixing up people who are confused and people who experience what the law calls dilution. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 8:24 am
Ragosta, A Wall Between Secular Government and a Religious People, 26 Roger Williams U. [read post]
5 Apr 2014, 11:27 am
Coca-Cola. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 1:57 pm
In the absence of proof that real people were exposed to products that were unsafe or ineffective (instead of just improperly promoted), there is simply no injury, and thus no standing, for any sort of claim by a TPP or other beneficiary for purely economic loss. [read post]
