Search for: "Converse, Inc. v. International Trade Commission"
Results 81 - 94
of 94
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Mar 2010, 10:47 pm
– Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, March 12, 2010 In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement agreement and consent decree, to address a lawsuit filed by Wildearth Guardians: Wildearth Guardians v. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 6:36 am
Streamlining Management and Internal Processes Mr. [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 9:11 pm
Click Here Center for Biological Diversity v. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 3:57 pm
Knowing this possibility may hinder the Attorney-Client relationships because the company may be afraid to disclose certain conversations regarding, for instance, the company’s questionable antitrust and securities activities to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for fear that the DOJ will pass along the information to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 6:37 am
(Editor’s Note: This post comes to us from Katrina Dewey, CEO & Publisher, Lawdragon, Inc.) [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 1:06 am
The ruling, in Grammar v. [read post]
12 Mar 2009, 9:19 am
The criminal case is U.S. v. [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 12:12 pm
(IPKat) German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) guidance regarding registrability of 'spa' in relation to beauty care products and spa services (Class 46) Europe ARMAFOAM: the ECJ rules on linguistic and changes OHIM's rules on conversion: Armacell v OHIM (CATCH US IF YOU CAN !!!) [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 12:05 pm
Indeed, respondents essentially concede that if an entity is a "public body" for purposes of the OML, it is a public "agency" for purposes of FOIL (see generally Perez, 5 NY3d at 528), although the converse is not necessarily true (see Citizens for Alternatives to Animal Labs, Inc. v Board of Trustees of State Univ. of New York, 92 NY2d 357, 362 [1998]). [read post]
2 May 2008, 7:00 am
Landmark IP implications for universities: University of Western Australia v Gray: (IPRoo), (Managing Intellectual Property), (The Age), Domain name transfer made easier: (Australian Trade Marks Law Blog), Quantum of obviousness in Australian patent laws - C Lawson: (IP Down Under), Separating Sony sheep from Grokster (and Kazaa) goats: Reckoning [read post]
17 Mar 2008, 6:25 am
" [38] Under the Court's ruling, a trade organization running a political advertisement may advocate for a candidate's positions (or conversely, against their opponent's position) but may not expressly advocate that a voter support or oppose a particular candidate. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 6:00 pm
Signature Financial Group, Inc., and AT&T Corp. v. [read post]
15 Feb 2008, 9:00 am
: (IP finance),Global - Trade Marks / Domain Names / BrandsICANN supports Google’s fight against domain-tasting: (Class 46),Global - PatentsSoftware patents and startup innovators: (Technological Innovation and Intellectual Property),Co-inventor: yes or no? [read post]
18 Oct 2006, 5:26 pm
On Sept. 29, 2006, the Board issued its decisions in Oakwood Healthcare, Croft Metals, and Golden Crest, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. [read post]
