Search for: "Williams v. Marks"
Results 141 - 160
of 2,592
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Oct 2011, 4:48 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Bloom & Ors v The Pensions Regulator & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1124 (14 October 2011) HM Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 1156 (14 October 2011) Estafnous v London & Leeds Business Centres Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1157 (14 October 2011) Williams & Anor v Hinton & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1123 (14 October 2011) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Stewart & Ors, R v… [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 5:58 pm
Jacobsparts, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2022, 9:13 am
See Williams v. [read post]
1 Apr 2008, 3:00 am
#19: CoStar Realty Information, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 4:06 am
Ltd of Guangzhou, Cancellation No. 92054959 [Petition to cancel a registration for the mark shown below [transliteration: WANG LAO JI] for "processed tea leaves packaged in bags," on the ground of fraud in that a Section 8 Declaration of Use for said registration was fraudulently signed by one Kevin Whang as "Owner" of the mark when he was neither owner of the mark or authorized to practice before the USPTO].March 18, 2014 - 2 PM: Anheuser-Busch Incorporated v. [read post]
4 Mar 2008, 11:02 am
State of Indiana (NFP) William Cass v. [read post]
9 Feb 2008, 9:15 am
Felsher v. [read post]
16 Oct 2017, 4:05 am
Perry, Conscience v. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 6:00 am
"A motion to renew, opined the Appellate Division, is not a second chance to remedy inadequacies that occurred in failing to exercise due diligence in the first instance, and the denial of a motion to renew will be disturbed only where it constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion" (Walden v Varricchio, 195 AD3d 1111, 1114 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Williams v Annucci, 175 AD3d 1677, 1679 [2019]). [read post]
26 Dec 2021, 5:30 am
" A motion to renew, opined the Appellate Division, is not a second chance to remedy inadequacies that occurred in failing to exercise due diligence in the first instance, and the denial of a motion to renew will be disturbed only where it constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion" (Walden v Varricchio, 195 AD3d 1111, 1114 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Williams v Annucci, 175 AD3d 1677, 1679 [2019]). [read post]
31 Dec 2021, 4:00 am
" A motion to renew, opined the Appellate Division, is not a second chance to remedy inadequacies that occurred in failing to exercise due diligence in the first instance, and the denial of a motion to renew will be disturbed only where it constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion" (Walden v Varricchio, 195 AD3d 1111, 1114 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Williams v Annucci, 175 AD3d 1677, 1679 [2019]). [read post]
26 Dec 2021, 5:30 am
" A motion to renew, opined the Appellate Division, is not a second chance to remedy inadequacies that occurred in failing to exercise due diligence in the first instance, and the denial of a motion to renew will be disturbed only where it constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion" (Walden v Varricchio, 195 AD3d 1111, 1114 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Williams v Annucci, 175 AD3d 1677, 1679 [2019]). [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 12:24 pm
Discrimination/RetaliationWilliams v. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 6:00 am
"A motion to renew, opined the Appellate Division, is not a second chance to remedy inadequacies that occurred in failing to exercise due diligence in the first instance, and the denial of a motion to renew will be disturbed only where it constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion" (Walden v Varricchio, 195 AD3d 1111, 1114 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Williams v Annucci, 175 AD3d 1677, 1679 [2019]). [read post]
31 Dec 2021, 4:00 am
" A motion to renew, opined the Appellate Division, is not a second chance to remedy inadequacies that occurred in failing to exercise due diligence in the first instance, and the denial of a motion to renew will be disturbed only where it constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion" (Walden v Varricchio, 195 AD3d 1111, 1114 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Williams v Annucci, 175 AD3d 1677, 1679 [2019]). [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 6:00 am
” Chandris, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 4:01 pm
Two US academics, Eric Goldman and Jeff Kosseff, have put together an interesting collection of articles on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and, to mark the twentieth anniversary of the pivotal decision in Zeran v AOL – which they describe as “internet law’s most important decision“. [read post]
Precedential No. 27: TTAB Affirms 2(d) Refusal of #WILLPOWER - Hashtag Has No Trademark Significance
22 Aug 2018, 3:36 am
” Juice Generation, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2019, 6:30 am
We’re grateful to learn of a legal historians' brief in Comcast Corporation, Petitioner v. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 4:00 am
Oman, Civil Disobedience in Latter-Day Saint Thought, (William & Mary Law School Research Paper No. 09-388, 2019).William Nichol Eskridge, Robin Fretwell Wilson & Andrew M. [read post]
