Search for: "King v. Cook*"
Results 61 - 80
of 273
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jan 2007, 12:25 pm
LLC v. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 4:05 am
Jeremy gives the floor to Bill Ladas (King & Wood Mallesons), who compares two groups of decisions of OHIM Fourth and Fifth Boards of Appeal, concerning registrability of fanciful animals’ devices as 2D and 3D trade marks. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 9:30 pm
” In light of the Chief Justice Roberts's opinion in King v. [read post]
28 Aug 2011, 9:28 am
Placek, v. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 6:46 pm
King Drug Company of Florence, Inc., et al., No. 15-1055 (antitrust reverse payment – appeal from the 3rd Cir.) 3. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 5:19 pm
I guess Eat ‘N Park has no problem trading off the goodwill that has been built up by the self-proclaimed king of all Smileys.] [read post]
1 Sep 2007, 8:09 am
On due consideration of plaintiffs' complaint in light of the parties' appellate arguments, we affirm the district court's judgment that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 07a0342p.06 2007/08/28 Operation Kings v. [read post]
8 Aug 2016, 6:09 am
” State v. [read post]
25 Aug 2008, 1:11 am
Clemmer v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 9:16 am
King Drug Company of Florence, Inc., et al., No. 15-1055 (antitrust reverse payment – appeal from the 3rd Cir.) 3. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
See Mein v. [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 2:51 pm
State v. [read post]
25 Oct 2017, 4:28 am
In Passananti v. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:20 am
******************************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATENever too late 30 [week ending Sunday 18 January] -- Julia Reda’s EU copyright revolution | GC on trade-marketing bottle shapes in (T-69/14 and T-70/14) | IPKat and BLACA’s event on Sensory copyright | IP Cross-Border Enforcement | US Supreme Court in Teva v Sandoz | On-line copyright infringement in Spain | GC on the ‘Pianissimo’ trade mark for vacuum cleaners… [read post]
27 Nov 2015, 6:07 am
Nissen v. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 7:28 am
Bell v. [read post]
24 Mar 2020, 3:00 am
King v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 10:17 am
By the Kean Miller State and Local Tax Team On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in South Dakota v. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 11:14 am
The fact that the lessees were made aware that a charge would be made for that period, by the RTM schedule and by the 2017 demand, does not amount to compliance with section 20B (Skelton v DBS Homes (Kings Hill) Limited (2017) EWCA Civ 1139 paragraph 18: “it is not enough under section 20B that the tenant has received the information that his landlord proposes to make a demand”). [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
Conversely, if plaintiffs could import the “fraud on the market” presumption of reliance into non-securities contexts – such as consumer fraud/common-law fraud/warranty litigation against our drug/device clients – an invasion of class actions would follow like night follows day.It’s hardly surprising that, because we don’t want class actions certified against our clients, we’re not big fans of “fraud on the market,” and we want to remain see it… [read post]
