Search for: "Doe v. Decker" Results 161 - 180 of 208
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Dec 2011, 8:00 am by Kali Borkoski
Petition for certiorari Brief in oppositionPetitioners' reply Amicus brief of Pacific Legal Foundation CVSG Information:Invited: December 12, 2011 Decker v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 3:08 am
LED Technologies Pty Ltd (Mallesons Stephen Jaques) It’s all fun and games until someone goes to jail – Ugg Boots – trademark and copyright infringement case, contempt of court: Deckers v. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 6:00 pm by Duncan
LED Technologies Pty Ltd (Mallesons Stephen Jaques) It’s all fun and games until someone goes to jail – Ugg Boots – trademark and copyright infringement case, contempt of court: Deckers v. [read post]
28 Jun 2015, 4:13 pm by INFORRM
The case of Decker v Hopcraft has now settled and there was no application on 23 June 2015. [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 6:02 pm by Duncan
– FCA orders jail time for contempt of court on basis of disobedience of earlier injunctions: Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc. v Farley (No (Patentology) (IPKat) FCA: Copyright in medical records: Primary Health Care Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (IP Whiteboard) Are those real? [read post]
26 Sep 2010, 10:08 pm by Marie Louise
Graphic Management Associates, Inc (Docket Report) Merely being a ‘sophisticated company’ does not impute an ‘intent to deceive’ for false marking claim: Herengracht Group LLC v. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 6:31 am
MN Mining and Mfg (Docket Report) District Court Massachusetts: Delay alone does not establish prejudice necessary for prosecution laches defense: The Holmes Group, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 3:10 am by Daniel E. Cummins
&C.4th 375, 2007 WL 6853118 (2007)[see also companion decision: Decker v. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 4:23 pm by INFORRM
On 12 February 2015, there will be an application in the case of Decker v Hopcraft. [read post]
What is more, the vagueness of the stipulated criteria, as well as the fact that the risk assessment requirement does not apply horizontally – rather it is triggered at the request of a College Member for specific suppliers – highlight the discretionary nature of the process. [read post]