Search for: "Mays v. Parker" Results 161 - 180 of 1,364
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 May 2008, 12:55 pm
The case is still dubbed Illinois Computer Research v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 2:17 am by gmlevine
The qualification is that “the Lanham Act’s tolerance for similarity between competing marks varies inversely with the fame of the prior mark,” Kenneth Parker Toys Inc. v. [read post]
25 May 2021, 6:27 am by CMS
In this post, Sarah Day, a senior associate with CMS, previews the decision awaited from the UK Supreme Court in the matter of Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Limited. [read post]
1 Mar 2007, 2:13 pm
Today's February NMCCA case dump onto Navy Knowledge Online included not only Parker and Gallagher, both from yesterday, but also the Edwards opinion from last week. [read post]
24 Jun 2018, 1:55 pm by Howard Friedman
  Most of his claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, while his complaint regarding observance of a fast day was found not to have amounted to a substantial burden on his free exercise.In Parker v. [read post]
26 Nov 2011, 7:10 am by Mark S. Humphreys
People in Weatherford, Mineral Wells, Aledo, Azle, Springtown, Willow Park, Brock, Hudson Oaks, Millsap, Cool, Peaster, Palo Pinto, and other places in Parker and Palo Pinto Counties may wonder: How long does the insurance company have to pay the claim? [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 12:52 pm by Alison Rowe
CV-07-1322 in the 415th District Court of Parker County, Texas; Lynn Welk, et al. v. [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 2:30 am by gmlevine
The qualification is that “the Lanham Act’s tolerance for similarity between competing marks varies inversely with the fame of the prior mark,” Kenneth Parker Toys Inc .v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 4:43 am by INFORRM
The defendant Chief Constable’s application to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement was dismissed at first instance by HHJ Parker in May 2023. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 3:51 am by Dave
The judgment of the PC was delivered by Sir Jonathan Parker and it will be of particular interest as it demonstrates the continuing importance of the Court of Appeal's excellent judgment in Gillett v Holt [2000] EWCA Civ 66 as well as raising (without deciding) the interesting issue of the remedy when section 116, LRA 2002 is in issue in relation to third party buyers after the estoppel has been established. [read post]