Search for: "Clark v. No Named Defendant" Results 21 - 40 of 553
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Aug 2009, 9:01 pm
In December 2006, plaintiff Custom Auto Interiors, Inc., d/b/a Custom RV Interiors, Inc., sued defendant Custom RV Interiors, Inc. and its owners in Clark County Superior Court for trade name infringement. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 4:57 pm by INFORRM
The court noted that in Birmingham City Council v Shafi [2008] EWCA Civ 1186, Clarke MR and Rix LJ observed that “it has long been recognised that the court’s power to grant relief by way of injunction is to be exercised only in support of some legal or equitable right“. [read post]
30 Aug 2022, 7:10 pm by Bill Marler
Plaintiff will set forth the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Doe Defendants together with appropriate specific charging allegations when ascertained. [read post]
12 Feb 2017, 6:54 am
Like many other Polo brands the Beverly Hills Polo Club name has been heavily licensed for consumer products such as clothing and shower gels.There has been a longstanding dispute between the club's UK licensee (Lifestyle) and six Sports Direct group companies (including an earlier decision from Master Clark regarding the required court fee for IP claims - see an earlier IPKat post here). [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:26 am by INFORRM
On Monday and Tuesday 17 and 18 October 2011 the Supreme Court (Lords Phillips, Brown, Mance, Clarke and Dyson) will hear the appeal of the defendant, Times Newspapers, against the decision of the Court of Appeal ([2010] EWCA Civ 804) that the publication of an article on 2 June 2006 was not covered by Reynolds privilege. [read post]
9 Feb 2009, 10:54 am
  Judge Giblin conducted the Markman, and the defendant, Boston Scientific (name sounds familiar, but I can't remember why...) appealed. [read post]
12 Jul 2014, 6:18 am by Robert Kreisman
On Feb. 1, 2010, Fonseca filed a lawsuit naming Clark Construction Group, LLC as a defendant. [read post]
6 Dec 2006, 7:02 am
Here is the Indiana Supreme Court's opinion in Roy Lee Ward v. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
Binchy J considered In re McInerney Homes Ltd [2011] IEHC 25 (10 January 2011) (Clarke J) (affd [2011] IESC 31 (22 July 2011) [61]-[62] (O’Donnell J)); and, notwithstanding that much of the defendant’s new evidence was hearsay, he allowed the defendant’s application to adduce it. [read post]