Search for: "USA v. Michel" Results 101 - 120 of 147
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jun 2010, 2:00 pm by Kevin
Batavia St., Orange Ramanlal Patel, 61A to Z Auto Body, 5042 Lincoln Ave., Cypress Sergio Escalante Perez, 44, USA Auto Collision, 471 W. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 8:15 am by ricelawmd_3p2zve
Supreme Court ruled police and other enforcement agencies require a search warrant to open a phone confiscated during an arrest in the case of Riley v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 11:05 pm
Poetman Records USA, Inc. 2010 (Copyright Litigation Blog) District Court N D Illinios: Party claiming copyright ownership not a rule 19 necessary party: Zimnicki v. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 2:27 pm by Kevin LaCroix
    In the Singapore matter of Tan Chin Seng & Others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd, significant efforts were undertaken by a number of the dissatisfied club members to build a website and work to engage the 4,885 members. [read post]
28 May 2009, 11:17 am
Fendi USA, Inc. 134 F.3d 48 (2nd Cir. 2002). [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 1:00 am
: L’Oréal v Bellure (IPKat) Is the ruling in L’Oréal v Bellure against the law? [read post]
27 Mar 2009, 7:20 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com]   Highlights this week included: US CAFC: Continuation limits invalid; limits on claims and RCEs are ok: Tafas v Doll (Patently-O) (Law360) (Hal Wegner) (IAM) (Patent Baristas) (Promote the Progress) (Patent Docs) (Patent Docs) (Patent Docs) (IP Spotlight) (Inventive Step) (IP Watchdog) (Washington State Patent Law Blog) (Anticipate This!) [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 1:21 pm
F/V Paul and Michelle, 868 F.2d 519 (11th Cir. 1989); Gardiner v. [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 12:12 pm
(IPKat) German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) guidance regarding registrability of 'spa' in relation to beauty care products and spa services (Class 46)   Europe ARMAFOAM: the ECJ rules on linguistic and changes OHIM's rules on conversion: Armacell v OHIM (CATCH US IF YOU CAN !!!) [read post]
29 May 2022, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
  The work has been comprehensively updated to take in the latest case including Lachaux, Stocker, Serafin, Lloyd v Google, Economou, Wright v Ver, Wright v Granath, Corbyn v Millett, Duchess of Sussex v Associated, and Soriano v Forensic News. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 3:04 am by INFORRM
The full list of resolved complaints from last week: Mr Peter Reynolds v The Mail on Sunday, Clause 1, 20/04/2012; Samaritans, Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, Sane and PAPYRUS Prevention of Young Suicide v The Sun, Clause 5, 19/04/2012; Mr Adam Stephens v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 19/04/2012; Mr Peter Reynolds v Harborough Mail, Clause 1, 19/04/2012; Mrs Drene Brown v Scunthorpe Telegraph, Clause 1, 19/04/2012; A woman v Hastings and St Leonards… [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:24 am
’ (China Law Blog)   Europe ECJ finds similar marks on wine and glasses not likely to cause confusion: Waterford Wedgewood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) AG Colomer opines in Maple leaf trade mark battle: joined cases American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates SA (IPKat) (Excess Copyright) CFI: Restitutio and time limits: how does the law stand now for CTMs? [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 3:57 am by Rob Robinson
§ 1920 (PDF) t.co/f6HHAi9a (Latham & Watkins) No Resolution Reached in Pippins v. [read post]
16 Jan 2009, 7:00 am
(IP Dragon) Patent strategies for foreign R&D work in China (Philip Brooks' Patent Infringement Updates) All clichés but still true: Intellectual Property Rights enforcement in China leaves room for improvement (IP Dragon) Recognition and protection of well-known trade marks (International Law Office) Revised Chinese patent law aims at quality, compulsory licensing (Intellectual Property Watch) Zen and the art of intellectual property in China (IP Dragon)   Colombia… [read post]
3 May 2013, 11:16 am by Ritika Singh
Interestingly, the Volokh Conspiracy notes that the New York Supreme Court held today in Bezio v. [read post]