Search for: "T-UP v. Consumer Protection"
Results 1401 - 1420
of 4,764
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2009, 8:49 am
You won't see any language about that in the opinion, though. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 7:14 am
Law §§ 13–301 to 13–501 (2013), and the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 7:47 am
Enigma Software Group USA, LLC v. [read post]
2 Nov 2007, 2:02 am
Plaintiff's state law consumer protection claims were dismissed because he couldn't show direct harm to consumers, as opposed to simple confusion caused by infringement. [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 3:59 am
A one-line conclusion is all we end up with in the Louboutin red sole sagaChristian Louboutin v Van Haren Schoenen BV Case C‑163/16, CJEU (June 2018)This case looking at the nature of Louboutin’s attempt to protect the red sole of its famous footwear has been much discussed and debated amongst trade mark lawyers in its nine-year history. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 2:36 pm
Perhaps the parties did not bring that up. [read post]
4 Aug 2019, 1:26 pm
I didn’t sleep for the first couple night because I was so scared that she wouldn’t wake up. [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 7:22 am
We should have up-front insurance. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 3:13 am
You can see the clear link with baby food, can’t you? [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 9:33 am
Handsome Brook Farm, LLC v. [read post]
9 Jan 2021, 8:51 am
Aug. 12, 2020): Rejecting his claim that Facebook aided and abetted terrorism because he couldn’t show any harm from Facebook’s conduct. * Crossfit, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2018, 6:18 am
AT&T Mobility (9th Cir. en banc): The FTC is the leading federal consumer protection agency and, for many decades, has been the chief federal agency on privacy policy and enforcement. [read post]
15 Oct 2018, 12:52 am
And simply providing ads for them to VIEW is enough to make money (they don't even need to click on the ads!) [read post]
8 Oct 2021, 8:07 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
11 May 2020, 11:18 am
Lee v. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 8:15 am
Sys. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 12:09 pm
For more on the interplay between marketing representations and 230, see, e.g.: * 47 USC 230 and Consumer Protection Talk Notes * 47 USC 230 Talk at Fordham * Ninth Circuit Mucks Up 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence....AGAIN!? [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 3:59 am
The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal asserts that although “[t]he High Court’s four liberals again argued for essentially doing away with arbitration because they believe it is unfair to workers and consumers,” “that policy preference is up to Congress, which has expressly allowed arbitration clauses in contracts. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 9:30 am
By Rebecca Tushnet and Eric GoldmanTrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 1:43 pm
The purpose of trademark is consumer protection; source-identification is the most relevant consideration but not the entirety of TM law. [read post]
