Search for: "In re: Mark Brown v." Results 21 - 40 of 552
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 May 2007, 5:15 am
" In re Banana Republic (Apparel), LLC, Serial No. 78485048 (May 29, 2007) [not precedential].Applicant Banana sought to register "a credit card face with a translucent background consisting of the mottled colors orange, black and brown that represent a tortoise shell pattern" for credit cards, credit card services, and administration of loyalty programs.Examining Attorney Leigh A. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 1:09 pm by Sme
Mikarose, LLC (Utah, April 7, 2016) (reversing award of attorneys fees under federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC Chap. 8)Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease Bade-Brown v. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 12:16 pm by Julie Lam
 Justice Marilyn Kelly would grant leave to appeal in In re Mark E Moon Estate, No. 142743 and would remand for sentencing in People v. [read post]
10 Oct 2007, 10:59 pm
Rees, et al., 217 S.W.3d 307 (Ky. 2006).........7 Brown v. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 3:47 am
June 20, 2017 - 2 PM: Modern House Wines LLC v. [read post]
4 Jun 2011, 9:12 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Example: orange flavored soda doesn’t need to be orange; brown/purple would still taste like orange soda. [read post]
23 Aug 2019, 7:55 am
Then the powers that be separated the two factions under the "separate but equal parking doctrine" that has yet to be overruled by Brown v Board of Parking. [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 6:20 am
[Section 2(d) refusal of ACM RECORDS for audio recordings and musical production services in view of the registered marks ACM, ACM AWARDS, and THE ACM EXPERIENCE, owned by the same entity, for various musical entertainment services.August 30, 2017 7 - 1 PM:  The Coca-Cola Company v. [read post]
4 Mar 2017, 9:02 pm by Sme
Berryhill (10th Cir., February 15, 2017) (affiming denial of disability benefits because Johnson still retained the residual functional capacity for limited sedentary work) *Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]