Search for: "Grace Line, Inc. v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 55
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Aug 2011, 8:30 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 8:34 am by Ronald Collins
IMS Health Inc. (2011) (the commercial expression case) and the plurality opinion in United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 8:13 am by Fred Yarger
They “harbor[ed] doubts about the stability of such a line”: Does a religious man say grace before dinner? [read post]
28 Sep 2013, 11:08 am by Schachtman
First, the district saw through the argument that the claimed benzene-APL LNT model was good science because the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relies upon it. [read post]
17 Sep 2007, 10:14 pm
In upholding the threat of job loss violation, the Board distinguished a Sixth Circuit case involving the same Respondent, DTR Industries, Inc., v. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 1:08 pm by Bexis
  It just so happens that the latest items we’ve been graced with are worth knowing about.First, there’s what looks like the end of the line for the Hogan case. [read post]
9 May 2012, 5:54 am by Rebecca Tushnet
(United States) Coty is a global cosmetic company. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 12:25 am by Marie Louise
-Conn (IPKat) (EPLAW) EWHC (Ch): All threats, no action…: Best Buy Co Inc and another v Worldwide Sales Corporation Espana SL (IPKat)   United States  US General California’s Trade Secret disclosure statute doesn’t apply in Federal Court – or maybe it does (IP ADR Blog) US Patents USPTO wants to change restriction practice (Patent Baristas) The post-Bilski landscape: Why some tried, but failed, to ban ‘business… [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 7:38 am
  Many states have responded to this growing concern by enacting legislation restricting the association’s power to foreclose on property. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 1:13 pm by John Elwood
  Although BMW of North America, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 4:15 am
: Line One Laboratories Inc v California Exotic Novelties LLC (not precedential) (TTABlog) ITC: Initial determination finding violation of s 337 (trade mark and copyright infringement) in energy drink investigation based on complaint by Red Bull (ITC 337 Law Blog)     [read post]