Search for: "LANCASTER v. STATE"
Results 141 - 160
of 306
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2013, 4:24 pm
In McQuiggin v. [read post]
7 Feb 2007, 7:40 am
Therefore, DiBlasio v. [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 11:41 am
The guy was a soccer coach in Lancaster, for goodness sake. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 10:55 am
On February 4, 2015, the Commonwealth Court addressed and affirmed these principles in the case of Janice Donahay v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 9:47 am
Pursuant to Whitewood v. [read post]
31 Jul 2016, 1:44 pm
See Schleier, 515 U.S. at 331, 115 S.Ct. 2159; United States v. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 4:22 am
for participation, by an act occurred in another Member State (Member State B), in violation of trade mark rights committed in the first Member State (Member State A )? [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 3:00 am
Lancaster v. [read post]
15 Aug 2007, 7:09 pm
United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2008, 7:38 pm
Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986); Lancaster v. [read post]
24 May 2016, 6:40 am
The Supreme Court held an oral hearing of the application for permission to appeal in the case of R (Shindler & Anor) v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster & Anor, with the appeal to follow immediately if permission to appeal was granted. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 6:47 am
Christina Hausner is an attorney at Russell, Krafft & Gruber, LLP in Lancaster, PA. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 3:30 am
Wiggins v. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 11:43 am
Hearing the case of Metrish v. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 5:56 am
United States v. [read post]
COVID-19 Daily Insurance Regulatory Updates To Keep You Informed During The Lockdown (July 24, 2020)
24 Jul 2020, 3:13 pm
Ward, who yesterday ordered coordination of Tambellini v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 3:37 am
[this fits with the Court's ruling in Case C-127/09 Coty Prestige Lancaster v Simex, noted by the IPKat here] (2), (3) and (4) The trade mark proprietor is entitled to oppose further commercialisation of the unboxed products within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104 and Article 13(2) of Regulation No 40/94 where the outer packaging have been removed from perfumes and cosmetics without the consent of the trade mark proprietor if, as a result of the removal of the… [read post]
27 Jun 2008, 3:09 pm
Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986); Lancaster v. [read post]
1 Aug 2017, 6:47 am
I recently discussed an important victory for farmers in the case of Branton v. [read post]
