Search for: "Sales v. United States" Results 121 - 140 of 8,885
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Feb 2024, 8:15 am by franchiselawadmin
Section 280E refers to a provision in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of the United States. 280E has significant implications for businesses involved in the sale of controlled substances, including marijuana (or “cannabis” under Minnesota law). [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 8:15 am by franchiselawadmin
Section 280E refers to a provision in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of the United States. 280E has significant implications for businesses involved in the sale of controlled substances, including marijuana (or “cannabis” under Minnesota law). [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 9:45 am by Trent Dykes
In one case, the court ruled that a 30-month noncompete in a sale of a business agreement was unenforceable where the definition of “business” encompassed all of the purchaser’s business lines and geographic areas rather [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:22 am by centerforartlaw
(Accent Delight), an offshore company with Dmitry Rybolovlev as the ultimate beneficial owner, v. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 11:53 am by Phil Dixon
Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 12:34 pm by Covington & Burling LLP
” The bill would exempt “registered call centers in the United States, or foreign call centers who contract with a company registered in the United States. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 4:24 am by Alessandro Cerri
 BackgroundIn 2008, Yannick Noah, a French former tennis player, registered the following figurative sign (the Mark) as a European Union trade mark (EUTM), in respect of a number of categories of goods, including leather goods, clothing, games and playthings (the Registration): In 2019, Noah Clothing LLC, a clothing company based in the United States, filed an application with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) seeking revocation of the Registration,… [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 6:31 am by Linda Panszczyk
As for the injunction, the Fifth Circuit agreed with Rolex that the district court should have enjoined the sale of Rolex watches with non-genuine bezels, thus affirming, as modified, the district court’s injunction in part (Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v. [read post]