Search for: "B. K. Lanham"
Results 1 - 20
of 69
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Feb 2008, 1:06 am
K and N Engineering, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 3:18 am
P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant Trans Union’s counterclaims in this antitrust, Lanham Act unfair trade practices and related state law claims involving FICO’s credit score algorithms. [read post]
30 Dec 2019, 8:09 am
The court found the Lanham Act claim sufficiently pled. [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 2:38 pm
Plaintiffs claim Defendants, B&B Operations, LLC, B&K Property Holdings LLC, and B&B Property Holdings, LLC, collectively doing business as Club 44 have used the Plaintiffs’ images to promote their strip club business. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 10:48 am
P. 4(k)(2) nationwide service of process because the Lanham Act, which created federal question jurisdiction in this trade secret misappropriation case, did not provide for nationwide service, as some acts do. [read post]
5 Feb 2011, 2:29 am
Rather, the loser’s recourse is to commence a de novo law suit under the national law of its jurisdiction which, in the case of the United States would be a claim under the Lanham Act. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 11:52 am
Or a little from column A and a little from Column B. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 5:13 pm
(B&S), based in Lanham and Greenbelt, Maryland, to assist Metropolitan Money Store in its foreclosure consulting and credit servicing business. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 8:19 am
§ 53(b)) says nothing whatsoever about monetary relief. [read post]
19 Oct 2017, 6:32 am
In 2016, Siemens obtained FDA clearance to market IMMULITE, under a “substantial equivalence” finding through the Section 510(k) premarket notification process. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 2:24 am
If the Panel rules in favor of the complainant the respondent must act within 10 days of the issuance of the order to take advantage of the Policy’s automatic stay of cancellation or transfer [paragraph 4(k) of the Policy]. [read post]
In The 9th Circuit, May Not Be Worth It To Elect Statutory Damages In Trademark Counterfeiting Claim
1 Jan 2008, 9:36 am
This runs contrary to the purpose of the Lanham Act; consumer protection legislation. [read post]
16 Jan 2008, 9:26 am
§ 1117(b). [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 3:22 pm
Petition, Michelle K. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 3:22 pm
Petition, Michelle K. [read post]
6 Nov 2023, 4:47 am
" Lanham Act, Section 45. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 6:59 pm
Kevin K. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 9:16 am
The only relevant instruction was that “Virginia common law unfair competition claim requires the same proof, including likelihood of confusion, as the Lanham Act offenses. [read post]
1 May 2019, 1:38 pm
California Penal Code § 502 creates liability against an individual who “[k]nowingly accesses and without permission alters, damages, deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B) wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:30 am
§ 1117(a) and (b);I. [read post]
