Search for: "In Re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." Results 121 - 140 of 433
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Oct 2021, 7:02 pm by Bill Marler
  The law firm has brought Salmonella lawsuits against such companies as Cargill, ConAgra, Peanut Corporation of America, Sheetz, Taco Bell, Subway and Wal-Mart. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 6:00 am by Wystan M. Ackerman
  As you may recall, he did a previous guest post regarding the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision to adopt the Wal-Mart v. [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 6:21 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer Riley In recent posts, we have recounted efforts by the plaintiffs’ class action bar to “re-boot” class certification theories to work around the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Jul 2009, 9:38 pm
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88 (2007), plaintiff moved to certify a class of current and former New Jersey employees of Wal-Mart for unpaid work. [read post]
22 Feb 2022, 2:33 am
In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010); see also In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 129 USPQ2d 1148, 1149-50 (TTAB 2019). [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 7:46 am by Joy Waltemath
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in the District of Massachusetts; the case number is 1:15-cv-12945-WGY. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 12:00 pm
Spirits International N.V., Cancellation No. 92043340 [Petition for cancellation of a registration for the mark RUSSKAYA for vodka, on the ground of abandonment].December 16, 2008 - 11 AM: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 4:16 am
Corp., 2 8 USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (TTAB 1993); see also In re TracFone Wireless, 2019 USPQ2d 222983 at *1 ; In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 129 USPQ2d 1148, 1152 (TTAB 2019) (“The mere fact that a phrase proposed for registration appears on the specimens of record does not establish its use as a service mark. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 5:32 am
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently denied certification of a putative securities law class after finding that plaintiff failed to put forth actual facts showing adequacy and predominance, as required to satisfy the “stringent standards” of Rule 23 pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 6:55 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer Riley The plaintiffs' class action bar continues in its search for "re-booting theories" to workaround Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]