Search for: "Mann v. Mann"
Results 1381 - 1399
of 1,399
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Mar 2007, 4:14 am
Light Co. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 8:47 am
Mann, No. 05-7181 (D.C. [read post]
22 Mar 2007, 9:38 am
Full text of ACLU v. [read post]
17 Mar 2007, 7:06 pm
Mann v. [read post]
15 Mar 2007, 7:12 am
(Dirks v. [read post]
14 Mar 2007, 8:22 am
You may read Mann v Pischke here. [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 6:58 am
Mann, 517 F.2d 259 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1087 (1978). [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 3:16 am
Mr Justice Mann was in action last Friday, giving judgment in Score Draw Ltd v Finch [2007] EWHC 462 (Ch), an appeal to the Chancery Division (England and Wales) from a decision of the UK Trade Mark Registry.Score Draw made and sold replica nostalgic football shirts. [read post]
3 Mar 2007, 2:48 am
Mann, 26 M.J. 1 (1988), United State v. [read post]
25 Feb 2007, 9:15 pm
Massachusetts, 427 U.S. 618 (1976), as has the Virginia Supreme Court in Manns v. [read post]
28 Jan 2007, 11:43 pm
Per Efaw v. [read post]
9 Jan 2007, 7:08 am
Now we have David Skeel and Bruce Mann—a big improvement. [read post]
14 Dec 2006, 4:15 pm
Merpel agrees, but adds that sometimes it is quite possible to work out the identity of the concealed celebrity - as happened to the unfortunate footballer in one of the cases cited in this judgment, A v B.Right Mann for the jobHesco Bastion Ltd v TFL Defence Ltd and others, decided yesterday in the Chancery Division, is a ruling of Judge Martin Mann QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, the IPKat found a note on it on LexisNexis Butterworths. [read post]
23 Nov 2006, 5:30 pm
Cinpres back in court, but to no availFurther thanks are due to Simon Haslam for spotting Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd, another round in the frankly tragic litigation between two companies over a patent that Cinpres lost following a bout of legally sanctioned perjury. [read post]
26 Oct 2006, 8:31 am
tend not to go far (recall how exciting Klein v. [read post]
24 Sep 2006, 9:35 am
Grosso v. [read post]
7 Sep 2006, 5:19 pm
They areCase T-133/05 Meric v OHIM, Arbora & Ausonia (PAM-PIM'S BABY-PROP), 7 September. [read post]
8 Mar 2006, 8:19 am
As for surface decoration, Mann J (v) should not have limited this exclusion to decorating a surface that was already there, the exclusion dealing with 3D shapes only. [read post]
24 Dec 2004, 5:41 am
In the High Court's Chancery Division last Tuesday, in Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2004] EWHC 2981 (Ch), Mr Justice Mann handed Dyson a welcome victory in its battle against unlicensed spare parts sellers.Dyson made vacuum cleaners; Qualtex supplied spare parts for domestic appliances that were duplicates of the original parts. [read post]
