Search for: "Roy v. AT" Results 1381 - 1400 of 1,727
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 May 2010, 8:09 am by Ted Frank
Add the plaintiff-friendly Exxon Shipping v. [read post]
27 May 2010, 12:57 pm by Kevin
People, I've just received terrible news: the appeal in Sugawara v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 11:24 am by Eric Turkewitz
Roy Mura dealt with this from the defense side at his blog, Coverage Counsel and asserted that there “will dramatically expand the number and kind of personal injury lawsuits that can be brought and tried in New York State. [read post]
19 May 2010, 11:01 am by Eric
As I have repeatedly said, trademark owners should view competitive keyword advertising lawsuits as an investment and measure their ROI accordingly. [read post]
15 May 2010, 9:34 am by INFORRM
  Roy Greenslade’s blog has a survey entitled “Coalition Day Three: What the Papers Say“. [read post]
10 May 2010, 8:50 am
She gave a bouncy and enthusiastic explanation of both the entitlement of employees to compensation and the means of its assessment in two recent cases known to readers of this weblog, Kelly & Chiu v GE (the Myoview case) and Shanks v Unilever. [read post]
9 May 2010, 9:14 pm by cdw
” [via FindLaw] Week of April 26,  2010: In Favor of the Accused or Condemned Ex Parte Roy Gene Smith,  2010 Tex. [read post]
8 May 2010, 8:53 am by INFORRM
   And there will be more to come: as Roy Greenslade says on his blog “watch out Clegg, the pro-Tory press is on your case“. [read post]
5 May 2010, 6:38 am by Garth Snider
One of the primary cases in advertiser-on-advertiser (competitor v. competitor) trademark infringement suits is Storus Corp. v. [read post]
3 May 2010, 10:43 am
Transocean, 2:10-cv-01222, US District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) and Cooper v. [read post]
2 May 2010, 1:12 pm by cdw
  For the Accused or  Condemened Ex Parte Roy Gene Smith,  2010 Tex. [read post]
1 May 2010, 1:22 am by INFORRM
  The then Lord Justice Neuberger was one the Court of Appeal judges in the seminal 2005 privacy decision in Douglas v Hello! [read post]