Search for: "People v. Coca"
Results 101 - 120
of 194
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
23 Mar 2020, 1:02 pm
” “Brands use logos to impress values, functions, and hierarchies on millions of people. [read post]
9 Aug 2024, 3:57 pm
Blehm v. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 8:24 am
The Coca-Cola Company v. [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]
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]
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]
29 Jun 2015, 4:34 am
Subject v. object: is TM law descriptive or normative? [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 2:03 pm
Metaphysics: Toney v. [read post]
19 May 2018, 3:46 pm
Hayes v. [read post]
18 May 2017, 9:47 am
“Nope,” said the Ninth Circuit in the recent case of Elliott v. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 9:52 am
Basketball superstars Jordan v. [read post]
28 Sep 2008, 2:16 am
Coca-Cola, presumably, is listening closely. [read post]
18 May 2017, 9:47 am
“Nope,” said the Ninth Circuit in the recent case of Elliott v. [read post]
