Search for: "P. v. Long"
Results 1361 - 1380
of 7,167
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Sep 2020, 9:39 am
—P&G comments (September 2019 to January 2020). [read post]
1 Sep 2020, 1:01 am
(Paul, op cit., p. 295) [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 1:49 pm
Ct. of Ariz., 778 P.2d 1333, 1336 (Ariz. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 12:44 pm
If you have not yet read United States v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 8:51 am
ART v OHIM, and C-196/11, Formula One Licensing v OHIM; see also the judgment of 12 June 2020, C-705/17, Hansson), the CJEU has sent a clear message about the “value” of these marks to trademark offices and courts, and there is room for hope that weak marks will stop being TMDs in future assessments of likelihood of confusion under EU trademark law…. [read post]
28 Aug 2020, 12:13 pm
In a recent Illinois case, People v. [read post]
28 Aug 2020, 3:30 am
We dined long before the Supreme Court ruled in Clayton County v. [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 2:59 pm
., State v. [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 6:20 am
Huawei and ZTE v. [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 2:56 pm
The Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia v. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 3:05 pm
P. 58, adv. comm. note (1993). [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 12:37 pm
P. 35(b)(1)(B), and the Panel's published order denying a stay conflicts with June Medical Services v. [read post]
23 Aug 2020, 7:49 pm
The court in Jane Doe v. [read post]
21 Aug 2020, 12:43 pm
Jackson v. [read post]
20 Aug 2020, 2:45 pm
The case is Grano v. [read post]
20 Aug 2020, 4:41 am
But if you do choose to pre-record yourself nodding and sipping coffee, spend your free time listening to Marlene’s summary of the recent copyright litigation of Thomson Reuters v. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 4:17 pm
[Update] Just after this post went live, a third Gibson Dunn partner, Jay P. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 5:13 am
Introduction On 13 May 2020, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the case of R v Adams (Appellant) (Northern Ireland) [2020] UKSC 19. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 10:00 am
” Minor v. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 6:33 am
Meanwhile, the corporate defendant has agreed to be subject to a consent order of permanent injunction which includes findings, an order of disgorgement, and penalties totaling $72,600 (CFTC v. [read post]
