Search for: "BRAND v DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE"
Results 1 - 20
of 151
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Oct 2008, 4:00 pm
In Duane Reade, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Nov 2022, 11:18 am
The case is NASCAR Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 7:29 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) CRC Credit Fund Ltd & Ors v GLG Investments Plc (Sub-Fund: European Equity Fund) & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 917 (02 August 2010) TM (Zimbabwe) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 916 (30 July 2010) Sheffield City Council v Wall (Personal Representatives of) & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 922 (30 July 2010) ZA (Nigeria) & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home… [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 1:24 pm
One use case is for companies’ communications departments. [read post]
13 Mar 2022, 9:01 am
Melwani sells products under the “Royal Silk” brand. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 7:24 am
January’s revenue projection of $2.3 million was a conservative lower-bound estimate, and actual revenues of $5.9 million more than doubled that number. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 4:00 pm
[5] Lyu v. [read post]
29 Mar 2019, 7:59 am
So, too, are her allegations that Defendants departed from an established advertising pattern, and that search results reflect the departure. [read post]
28 Apr 2023, 8:00 am
# # #DECISIONSouth Shore D'Lites LLC v First Class Prods. [read post]
11 Nov 2015, 8:05 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2012, 9:00 am
In Smiley v. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 6:24 am
However, the sad truth is that this insidious brand of fraud produces consequences beyond higher fees and insurance premiums. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 9:30 am
Department of Labor. [read post]
23 Feb 2018, 10:00 am
Furthermore, the government argues, the NDAA prevents the redress of the alleged reputational harm to Kaspersky because the NDAA provision at issue brands Kaspersky products as unsafe to use. [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 5:03 am
It observes that the prohibition is irrevocable, which is unique to Huawei and one other company (ZTE Corporation, which Trump controversially rescued from a Commerce Department punishment last year). [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 1:06 pm
Dweck v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 8:52 am
Brand X Internet Services, 545 U. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 11:40 am
Typically, plaintiffs who invoke § 8316 have invested resources in the development of a personal brand, and are suing to redress the unauthorized exploitation of that brand. [read post]
15 Oct 2012, 8:17 am
Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled that when a company took over a departing employee’s LinkedIn account, the company did not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the case of Eagle v. [read post]
