Search for: "United States v. United States Shoe Corp."
Results 101 - 120
of 214
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Sep 2015, 6:00 am
Wiretap Act (also known as Title III) prohibits the interception of a live communication (e.g., a telephone call) only if the interception occurs in the United States; it does not prohibit or regulate wiretaps (interception) conducted abroad.[8] Similarly, the U.S. [read post]
8 Apr 2012, 8:55 am
Of course, there is still that pesky little confusion test for Gucci, which in the Second Circuit is the Polaroid Crop v Polarad Elecs Corp (1961) test (see test here as applied to another famous shoe battle, Louboutin v YSL). [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 3:20 pm
United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325 (1962)). [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 9:22 am
Kaplan v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 1:37 pm
Relying on Red Wing Shoe Co. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 11:28 am
Whole Foods[24] and United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 11:30 am
The other shoe dropped this month in Corber’s companion case Romo v. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 1:16 pm
Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2018, 6:11 pm
Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, argued on behalf of the United States as an amicus. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:20 am
” At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro and others highlight the amicus brief the Institute has filed in United States v. [read post]
2 Aug 2007, 5:01 pm
Co. v. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 5:31 am
James Talcott, Inc. v Winco Sales Corp., 14 NY2d 227, 231-233 [1964]). [read post]
6 May 2022, 6:10 am
In 1977, in GTE Sylvania, the Courtheld that vertical customer and territorial restraints should be judged under the rule of reason.[17] In 1979, in BMI, it held that a blanket license issued by a clearinghouse of copyright owners that set a uniform price and prevented individual negotiation with licensees was a necessary precondition for the product and was thus subject to the rule of reason.[18] In 1984, in Jefferson Parish, the Court rejected automatic application of the per se rule to tying.[19]… [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 2:55 pm
In United States v. [read post]
31 Dec 2010, 10:38 am
United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001)). [read post]
12 May 2022, 6:45 am
Holdings, Inc., 696 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2012). [2] Gibson Guitar Corp. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 12:47 pm
Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (where the defendant wasn’t very “international”), and World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 12:15 am
Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2009, 7:18 am
Co. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 8:21 pm
An example of this use is AMERICAN GIRL for shoes, see Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. [read post]
