Search for: "Robert Marks v. USA" Results 121 - 140 of 499
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Oct 2011, 6:53 am by Kiran Bhat
”  Meanwhile, Mark Sherman of the Associated Press cites the hypotheticals posed by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Ginsburg as demonstrating the Court’s “generational divide”. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 6:51 am by Adam Chandler
Staff picks are marked by asterisks. [read post]
30 Apr 2018, 4:08 am by Edith Roberts
Last week’s oral argument in in Trump v. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 2:32 am
Natl City Corp     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati 08a0470n.06 Mark Stickel v. [read post]
31 May 2016, 3:05 pm by Molly Runkle
Commentary comes from Mark Joseph Stern at Slate. [read post]
25 Aug 2016, 8:12 am by Eric Goldman
Roberts analyzes the Olympic Committee’s efforts this year to crack down on tweeting certain terms.] [read post]
3 May 2016, 4:03 am by Amy Howe
  Lyle Denniston covered the orders for this blog, while Mark Walsh covered the grant in Star Athletica v. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 6:28 am
Big Apple Consulting USA, Inc., MJMM Investments, LLC, Marc Jablon, Matthew Maguire, Mark C. [read post]
5 Jun 2018, 4:11 am by Edith Roberts
The first was Hughes v. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 3:10 am
" Norway's Comfyballs gets a rough ride in the USA Norwegian underwear brand launched a pull to prove that the public is not offended by a trade mark for which it had sought registration in the US. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 6:42 am by Joshua Matz
  Dahlia Lithwick at Slate, Adam Liptak of the New York Times, Nicole Flatow of ACSblog, Mark Sherman of the Associated Press, Allison Hoffman at Tablet (where Daniel Halper previewed the case and Hoffman profiled Nathan Lewin, counsel for the petitioner), Joan Biskupic of USA Today, Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor, Steven Schwinn of Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Josh Gerstein of Politico, Robert Barnes of the Washington Post, James Vicini of… [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 4:44 am by Edith Roberts
Tam are Mark Walsh at Education Week, Daniel Fisher at Forbes, Tony Mauro at Law.com (subscription or registration required), and Robert Barnes at The Washington Post, who reports that a “majority of the Supreme Court seemed highly skeptical” “that the federal government can refuse to register all trademarks that may be disparaging, casting this as the government improperly taking sides in free speech disputes. [read post]