Search for: "Appeal of K-Mart Corp."
Results 21 - 40
of 43
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 May 2009, 1:32 pm
Wal-Mart Real Estate Bus. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 4:23 pm
Cire, 134 S.W.3d at 838; K-Mart Corp. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 6:36 am
And just five days later… without so much as a courtesy call or even a “F#@k you” card… U.S. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
K-Mart Corp., 612 S.E.2d 25, 28-29 (Ga. [read post]
14 Apr 2015, 4:50 pm
K-mart Corp. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 6:40 am
Ct. 2541 (2011), and the decision in Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 4:00 am
(Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) US General – Decisions California state appeals court upholds Bank of America win in trade secret spat with K C Multimedia (Law360) US General – Lawsuits and strategic steps Canon USA – Canon sues former employee for revealing trade secrets to rival Ikon Office Solutions in violation of confidentiality agreement (Law360) US Patent Reform Patent Reform Act of 2009 introduced in Senate… [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 2:01 pm
K Mart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 1996). [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 6:00 am
’: (LawFont.com)BrazilElectronic copies of oppositions now available on internet: (International Law Office)CanadaSam Trosow on latest CMEC copyright bulletins: (Michael Geist),ComputerWorld Canada on copyright reform: (Michael Geist),Deemed abandonment provisions pose traps for the unwary: (International Law Office),Trade mark appeals: stays and service requirements: (Canadian Trademark Blog),Franchising into Canada: (IP finance),More Champagne, anyone? [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 2:39 pm
Slip op. at 5-8.No problem, the plaintiff argued on appeal, just let me sue every maker of polio vaccine under a market share theory. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 2:00 pm
Behrend, 11-864, the follow-on to Wal-Mart v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
General Motors Corp. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2015, 1:11 pm
The trial court denied all of the post-trial motions, which were reviewed on appeal by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. [read post]
8 Nov 2016, 6:37 pm
Gangi and Robert K. [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 3:00 am
(IPKat) OHIM Board of Appeal rules on functional designs: R 690/2007-3 (Class 99) X5 and CEO Are they still riding side by side – Munich District Court and Turin District Court draw deviating conclusions in design dispute (Class 99) USPTO’s transparency puts Europe to shame (IAM) EU community patent and UPLS: Will there be a political breakthrough soon? [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 4:04 am
(IP finance) US General – Lawsuits and strategic steps LegalZoom – LegalZoom sued for unauthorised practice of law (The Invent Blog) US Patent Reform Reines and Greenblatt publish ‘Interlocutory Appeals of Claim Construction in the Patent Reform Act of 2009, Part II’ (Patently-O) (GRAY On Claims) US Patents USPTO extends period for public comment and period of effectiveness for recent programs (Patent Docs) (Patents4Life) The USPTO’s… [read post]
5 Sep 2008, 11:01 pm
& Ors v Deisel Spa and Case C-302/08 Zino Davidoff SA v Bendesfinanzdirektion Sudost: (Class 46), EPO Boards of Appeal finds that when a fax is transmitted and an ‘OK’ is noted by the sender, this is evidence that the transmission was successful: (IPKat), Professor Hugenholtz slams European Commission for ignoring evidence on copyright extension: (Techdirt) Germany Federal Patent Court publishes guidelines on colour trade mark Signal Yellow: (Class… [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 1:54 pm
Id.Given those differences, that all plaintiffs claimed the same general sort of injury from the same defendant’s product couldn’t justify consolidation:On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that despite the numerous differences articulated and entered into evidence regarding the twenty-seven [farmers], it is the same core of operative facts and questions of law that predominate and, thus, consolidation of the twenty-seven claims was proper. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
The Koosh Ball, for example, had its registration for copyright rejected by the Copyright Office, and on appeal, the DC Circuit held that the Office had not abused its discretion.11 But in most cases, separability would not be an issue since plaintiffs would be asserting copyright protection over labelling or packaging rather than the good itself. [read post]
