Search for: "In Re Interest of Br"
Results 101 - 120
of 283
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2017, 3:18 pm
See In re Old Glory Condom Corp., 26 USPQ 2d 1216, 1220, n. 3 (TTAB 1993) (‘[I]ssuance of a trademark registration . . . is not a government imprimatur’). [read post]
23 May 2017, 11:28 pm
Katfriend Mirko Brüß reports. [read post]
5 May 2017, 11:24 am
In re Gartside,203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. [read post]
26 Mar 2017, 4:00 am
L’intimé, qui habitait dans un immeuble de plusieurs logements, a subi de nombreuses brûlures. [read post]
24 Mar 2017, 10:16 am
Res. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 4:34 pm
Br. 7 n.1, anddoes not dispute Prism’s observation that its JMOLmotion raised only a “divided infringement” argument,outside the scope of its appeal. [read post]
25 Nov 2016, 9:30 pm
Ces changements résultent du nombre croissant d’échanges interculturels qui se tissent à la fois dans la sphère du commerce et des affaires militaires. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 7:03 am
“[E]ven if a consumer’s initial-interest confusion only persists long enough to lead him to the homepage, then Defendant has ‘br[ought] the patrons in the door. . . . [read post]
15 Sep 2016, 12:51 pm
In In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. [read post]
3 May 2016, 9:00 pm
’ Br. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 9:11 am
See, e.g., In re Gosman, 282 BR 45 (Bankr. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 9:11 am
See, e.g., In re Gosman, 282 BR 45 (Bankr. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 4:02 am
Br. 75, it is clear that finding and obtaining stand-alone contraceptive coverage on the Exchanges would be a substantial barrier for many women. [read post]
26 Feb 2016, 4:46 am
My broken record mantra: workers' compensation has three stakeholders: employer, employee and government.Everyone else is a vendor.Employees get lots of attention because, well, they're the recipients of the system. [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 9:03 am
” Appellee’s En Banc Br. 43. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 3:21 am
(Justice Carolyn Demarest’s opinion in Board of Managers v Chocolate Partners, LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 50754(U) [Sup Ct Kings County 2014] and the Bankruptcy Court’s opinion in In re Die Fliedermaus LLC, 323 BR 101 [SDNY 2005], are good places to start for anyone interested in learning more on the subject.) [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 7:22 pm
E. coli O157:H7 was identified for the first time at the CDC in 1975, but it was not until seven years later, in 1982, that E. coli O157:H7 was conclusively determined to be a cause of enteric disease. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 12:33 pm
In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:07 am
Circuit held that even if the accommodation did impose a substantial burden on one or more plaintiffs' religious exercise, the government has compelling reasons for rejecting any further accommodation or exemption, and that such interests cannot be adequately advanced by any less restrictive means. [read post]
