Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 1221 - 1240
of 19,471
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Dec 2009, 1:28 pm
In a recent decision of Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal, Masterpiece Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2009, 1:02 am
However, the judge did not err in applying Article 7(1)(e); what he had actually done was to state that the policy underlying that article was relevant to the assessment of whether there was a sufficient similarity for the purposes of Article 9(1)(c), both the mark and the sign being shapes. * An assessment of similarity had to be carried out on a global basis by reference to the degree of similarity between the mark and the sign (here the Court cited Case C-252/07 Intel… [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 3:59 am
Combe Incorporated v. [read post]
Bond v. United States: SCOTUS Interprets Criminal Statute Narrowly to Preserve Federal-State Balance
3 Jun 2014, 9:23 am
” Stenberg v. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 5:58 am
Flanders v. [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 9:59 pm
Hafer v. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 1:59 pm
(Orin Kerr) If anything is clear from the Supreme Court’s decision last week in United States v. [read post]
4 May 2012, 9:16 am
Rogers v. [read post]
27 May 2019, 4:35 pm
In the case of Allen v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] EWHC 1235 (QB) Warby J found that an article concerning Mark Allen, described as a ‘Grenfell cladding boss’, bore a defamatory meaning which was different from that contended for by the parties. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 8:05 am
Mark L. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 7:51 am
In United States v. [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 1:29 pm
By: Jason Rantanen Fujitsu Ltd. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 7:20 am
Sukumar v. [read post]
29 May 2014, 5:41 am
" White v. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 3:45 pm
State v. [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 7:02 pm
Miscellaneous*Wyles v. [read post]
1 Dec 2020, 10:00 pm
Morgan Lewis partner Mark Krotoski and associate Jonathan Justl authored a Law360 article about the oral arguments recently heard by the US Supreme Court in Van Buren v. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 8:38 pm
Zuckerberg, instead of kicking it to state court. [read post]
