Search for: "McNeil v. State"
Results 101 - 120
of 386
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Sep 2012, 9:37 am
McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharms., 672 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2012). [read post]
16 Apr 2014, 12:18 pm
See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 7:46 am
McNeil * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in False Advertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. [read post]
16 Feb 2022, 12:32 pm
Supreme Court case, Shearson/American Express v. [read post]
26 Nov 2009, 2:03 pm
In today's case (Forstved v. [read post]
26 May 2013, 10:16 am
State v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 2:11 pm
In Hutto v. [read post]
30 Jan 2021, 9:50 am
McNeil * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in False Advertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. [read post]
20 Dec 2014, 8:36 am
Wanda Petroleum Co., 468 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. 1971); McNeil Interests, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 1:20 pm
Levine involved a traditional state-law claim and did not affect the inability of state-law plaintiffs to sue over FDCA violations having no parallel in state law.Lofton v. [read post]
3 Apr 2010, 4:02 pm
Where an ad is literally false, the court has the power enjoin the use without reference to the impact of the ad on the buying public (McNeil-PCC v Bristol-Myers Squibb)(1991)). [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 4:28 am
(See Di Ponzio v Riordan, 89 NY2d 578 [1997]; Basso v Miller, 40NY2d 233 (1976); Jaume v Ry Mgt. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 9:30 pm
Historians appear prominently in the Supreme Court's decision in Haaland v. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 8:43 am
In support of that conclusion, the court makes this murky statement: “courts in this Circuit have repeatedly held that a plaintiff may state a claim under the Lanham Act where the defendant (1) interfered with the plaintiff’s ability to offer its own commercial services, and/or (2) used the Internet. [read post]
13 Aug 2015, 10:56 am
In Shah v. [read post]
27 May 2015, 8:47 am
See, e.g., Alston v. [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 8:14 am
Bayer Schering, 575 F.3d at 1347 (citing O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 903); see also Ortho-McNeil, 520 F.3d at 1364 (stating the number of options must be “small or easily traversed”). [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 8:14 am
Bayer Schering, 575 F.3d at 1347 (citing O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 903); see also Ortho-McNeil, 520 F.3d at 1364 (stating the number of options must be “small or easily traversed”). [read post]
26 Jun 2008, 12:15 am
The Court's more recent 1991 ruling in McNeil v. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 6:50 am
Compare, e.g., State v. [read post]
