Search for: "USA v. Washington" Results 1201 - 1220 of 1,575
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 May 2014, 8:54 am by John Elwood
City of Roswell, 13-975, and M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. [read post]
21 Feb 2010, 12:59 pm by Lyle Denniston
Humanitarian Law Project et al. (08-1498), and Humanitarian Law Project et al. 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]
2 Nov 2022, 8:20 pm by James Kwong
More details of the event can be found here.9 December 2022 – The USPTO and the McCarthy Institute: “The Future of Trade Secret Law” (The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Washington DC, USA)The USPTO and the McCarthy Institute will be holding the reception with a lecture in two parts, one to be delivered by the co-authors of the McCarthy Scholarship Award winning article “From Trade Secrecy to Seclusion” and one to be delivered by Judge Kent A. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 4:54 am by Ben
In Teresa Scassa, University of OttawaIn Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2020, 10:35 am by Anna Salvatore
” The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning in Nestlé USA v. [read post]
14 Apr 2019, 9:15 am
CIPA and CITMA will lead the events in Washington DC on April 22, Boston on April 23 and Palo Alto on April 25. [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]
19 Jul 2012, 6:25 am by Mandelman
In 1954, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brown v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 6:25 am by Mandelman
In 1954, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brown v. [read post]
4 Nov 2016, 4:39 am by Edith Roberts
” But in The Washington Post, David Wiegel reports that Sen. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 7:10 pm by Kiera Flynn
Washington and that petitioner must bear the affirmative burden of proving that he did not consent to the biased juror; (2) whether a court may presume a strategic purpose from a silent record regarding why counsel made decisions that are on their face objectively unreasonable; (3) whether the court below had the obligation to decide for itself which of two equally compelling interpretations of Florida v. [read post]