Search for: "Direct Sales Co. v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 736
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jan 2008, 2:45 am
An even earlier case, United States v. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 4:04 pm
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 17-421 Filed: December 27, 2018 ALICE KIMBLE, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 8:59 am by Raymond McKenzie
New York courts have interpreted § 684(3)(c) to mean in essence that  the sale of the first franchise unit is exempt from registration if the unit was only offered to a maximum of two people (See BMW Co., Inc. et al. v Workbench Inc. et al. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 1:50 pm by WIMS
AWR seeks to enjoin a timber salvage sale proposed by the United States Forest Service. [read post]
3 May 2010, 10:16 am
Tiffany & Co. v. eBay Inc., No. 08- 3947 (2d Cir. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 10:28 am by Adam Thimmesch
Dilworth Co., 322 U.S. 349 (1944) (rejecting the application of sales tax to an out-of-state sale); General Trading Co. v. [read post]
11 May 2018, 5:57 am by Joe
However, the distinction between direct taxes and indirect taxes acquired a new meaning in the United States with the development of the Constitution. [read post]
11 May 2018, 5:57 am by Joe
However, the distinction between direct taxes and indirect taxes acquired a new meaning in the United States with the development of the Constitution. [read post]
13 Sep 2017, 7:04 am by Kenan Farrell
This lawsuit arises out of the manufacture, importation, offer for sale, sale, and distribution in the United States of unauthorized copies of UtilitySport® trailers by the Defendants. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 10:10 am by Scott R. Anderson
Such a resolution would, under the AECA, prohibit the president from moving forward with the sale unless he certified to Congress that “an emergency exist[ed] which require[d] such sale in the national security interests of the United States. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 1:55 pm
§ 271(e)(4)(A)e) Defendants, and all persons acting in concert with Defendants, shall be enjoined from commercially manufacturing, using, offering for sale, or selling Lupin's Generic Product within the United States, or importing Lupin's Generic Product into the United States, until the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520 in accordance with 35 U.S.C. [read post]
26 Sep 2019, 3:44 pm by Nathan Smith
” Yet the “[p]rior sales and uses were not reported to the United States Patent Office. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 11:36 pm
“We agree with Pulse that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment of no direct infringement with respect to those products that Pulse manufactured, shipped, and delivered outside the United States because those products were neither sold nor offered for sale by Pulse within the United States. [read post]