Search for: "U. S. v. Marks"
Results 1201 - 1220
of 1,323
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Mar 2022, 9:18 am
A&M U. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 10:00 am
When a Member State's law grants a monopoly of exploitation to the owner of such a right, it follows that the owner may forbid any unauthorized third party, or infringer, from any sale, use or other exploitation within that State.[40] If an industrial or commercial property right has considerable economic significance, the owner in one State usually seeks to obtain parallel protection in all of the other States of the Community; however, this is not always possible, either because… [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 11:18 am
CKS’s findings do show that the figures cited in the President’s report are misleading, but, as we shall see, that evidence exists in other sources as well. [read post]
13 Mar 2016, 5:05 pm
Media Law in Other Jurisdictions Australia Dr Lisa Pryor, an author and journalist, has settled her defamation case against The Australian Financial Review and former Labor leader Mark Latham. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 10:22 am
The Court held that plaintiffs’ characterization of their claims as alleging omissions only was “off the mark. [read post]
15 Apr 2023, 10:36 am
Reich, 510 U. [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
The two decisions mark the second and third times a federal district court has held that a Federal Reserve Bank has the discretion to deny master accounts to legally eligible depository institutions. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 9:10 am
Richard Epstein is one of the nation’s leading law professors — U. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 2:55 am
Although the Court of Appeal was clear, in Neurim v Generics [2020] EWCA Civ 793, that deciding to uphold the lower court’s decision not to grant a pharmaceutical patent PI was based on the specific facts of that case, the Patents Court has subsequently refused two further pharmaceutical PIs (Neurim v Teva [2022] EWHC 954 (Pat) and [2022] EWHC 1641(Pat), and Novartis v Teva [2022] EWHC 959 (Ch)). [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 8:09 am
Shannon’s article Prescribing a Balance: The Texas Legislative Responses to Sell v. [read post]
17 May 2010, 9:25 am
These arguments miss the mark. [read post]
16 Dec 2016, 1:43 pm
Even under the appropriately exacting standards of New York Times v. [read post]
4 Jul 2007, 11:29 pm
Mark's Episcopal Church. [read post]
20 Jul 2018, 8:59 am
The seeds of most of them can also be found in the Supreme Court's crucial holding in Kewanee Oil Co. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 9:11 am
In Unum Group v. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 9:11 am
In Unum Group v. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 6:48 am
Massachusetts, 197 U. [read post]
19 Mar 2022, 2:09 pm
The FDA acknowledges, for instance, that the acceptable intake is set to mark “a small theoretical increase in risk,” and a “highly hypothetical concept that should not be regarded as a realistic indication of the actual risk,” and thus not an actual risk.[9] The corresponding hypothetical or theoretical risk to the acceptable intake level is clearly small when compared with the human’s lifetime probability of developing cancer (which the FDA states is… [read post]
1 May 2008, 11:21 am
See Hamilton v. [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 3:56 am
An Act (52 Stat. 351; 5 U. [read post]
