Search for: "State v. Leathers"
Results 121 - 140
of 329
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2008, 6:00 am
State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 528 (1983); see also Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2008, 11:23 am
In the Kings County (Brooklyn) Criminal Court case of People. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 5:24 am
She said that she did not wear leather, “but she did not expand on that and shrugged when she was asked about wool”. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 1:52 pm
The Henderson v Henderson rule did not apply for two reasons. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 11:53 am
Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911) rested upon “infirm economic rationales”, and in any event, has been explicitly overruled in Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. [read post]
19 May 2022, 3:54 pm
In Leather, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 3:01 pm
Supreme Court in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. [read post]
16 May 2012, 5:31 am
Lam v. [read post]
8 Dec 2006, 4:59 am
Grants Leegin Creative Leather Products v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 6:04 am
Authored by Steve Shardonofsky Earlier this year, we commented [here] that the Supreme Court agreed to review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Sandifer v. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 1:15 pm
Link Snacks, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 8:28 am
E&S Express Inc. and Simon Ying v. [read post]
25 Aug 2013, 5:13 pm
When I saw her listen as the High Court's newest opinions were read to the gathered public a few years ago, she was slouched over in her big black leather chair as if asleep. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 1:19 pm
In Lockheed v. [read post]
3 Sep 2017, 9:03 am
Supreme Court dicta has interpreted good faith as having no knowledge of prior use of the mark (K Mart Corp. v. [read post]
9 May 2012, 8:27 am
In the case of GLT Technovations, LLC v. [read post]
2 May 2009, 8:49 am
The new pricing law essentially restores the law regarding minimum resale pricing to how it existed prior to the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2021, 3:42 am
Mr Hobbs traces this proposition back through various cases to Leather Cloth Co. v American Leather Cloth Co. (1865) H.L.C. 523.Scandecor Developments AB v Scandecor Marketing AB [2001] UKHL 21 takes us through the changes that have taken place over time to the way trade is conducted and hence the changing conditions that have been applied to the sale of trade marks. [read post]
7 Jan 2013, 11:44 am
M-Edge Accessories LLC v. [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 2:12 pm
Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. [read post]
