Search for: "Three S Consulting v. US" Results 121 - 140 of 5,351
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Aug 2015, 11:57 am by Keith L. Miller
All of the documents were filed using the attorney’s electronic case filing account, but were signed using a different lawyer’s name. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 2:56 pm by Nikki Siesel
Please feel free to contact our office for a courtesy consultation if you are thinking of filing a trademark application on a bona fide intent to use basis. . [read post]
30 Sep 2017, 9:20 am by The Law Offices Of Peter Van Aulen
The court held that NJ domestic violence laws even more vigorously prohibit the use of such motions to dismiss the action when the alleged victim’s safety is the primary consideration of the court. [read post]
30 Sep 2017, 9:20 am by The Law Offices Of Peter Van Aulen
The court held that NJ domestic violence laws even more vigorously prohibit the use of such motions to dismiss the action when the alleged victim’s safety is the primary consideration of the court. [read post]
10 May 2018, 12:27 pm
Christiansen was allowed to continue her use of the District’s email. . . . [read post]
23 Mar 2021, 5:35 pm by INFORRM
In examining whether an interference is justified, the ECtHR assesses three criteria: the interference’s accordance with the law, the legitimate aim, and the necessity in a democratic society (the proportionality principle) (§43). [read post]
6 Dec 2023, 12:24 pm by Administrator
For this past month, the three most-consulted English-language decisions were: Jessica McGaw v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 4:00 am by Daniel Bailey
  In an "unpublished" decision under the court's Rule 1:28, a three-judge panel in Brooks v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 4:00 am by Daniel Bailey
  In an "unpublished" decision under the court's Rule 1:28, a three-judge panel in Brooks v. [read post]
4 Sep 2020, 10:21 am by Eric Goldman
A few standout points in the multi-factor test: regarding mark similarity, the court accepts the plaintiff’s allegation that “Defendant uses terms similar to Plaintiffs’ registered trademarks and uses the identical marks as keywords to manipulate search engine results and confuse consumers, including using Alder’s marks in the ads themselves. [read post]