Search for: "Mccarthy v. Cir"
Results 61 - 80
of 224
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2022, 9:02 pm
Pursuant to this exception, defendant "need not prove that age is a [bona fide occupational qualification] for its police officers" (Kopec v City of Elmhurst, 193 F3d 894, 902 [7th Cir 1999]; see Feldman v Nassau County, 434 F3d 177, 182 n 5 [2nd Cir 2006]). [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 6:38 am
Cir. 2016) [precedential]. [read post]
5 May 2022, 4:25 am
Bacardi & Co., No. 19-55864, 2022 WL 1180767 (9th Cir. [read post]
9 Aug 2007, 9:15 pm
McCarthy v. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 3:04 pm
Lombardi, 782 F.3d 963, 967 (8th Cir. 2015); see also, e.g., SanMedica International v. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 3:34 am
") (quoting McCarthy v. [read post]
20 May 2008, 2:25 pm
In TrafFix Devices v. [read post]
29 Apr 2008, 6:32 pm
Standard Process, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2022, 12:31 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 6:45 am
Miller v. [read post]
17 Aug 2021, 9:08 am
McNeil Consultants, LLC, 2021 WL 3508713 (5th Cir. [read post]
8 Feb 2014, 10:36 am
AF v. [read post]
30 Apr 2015, 1:11 pm
McNeil Consumer Healthcare, 615 F.3d 861, 873 (7th Cir. 2010). [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 9:25 am
See, e.g., American Home Products Corp. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2013, 7:24 pm
(See, e.g., American Home Products Corp. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 4:57 pm
Thomas McCarthy, who has apparently called the decision “embarrassing” (see write-up by Seattle Trademark Lawyer and contrasting write-up by Likelihood of Confusion). [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 6:52 am
Thomas McCarthy, who has apparently called the decision “embarrassing” (see write-up by Seattle Trademark Lawyer and contrasting write-up by Likelihood of Confusion). [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 3:28 am
(See, e.g., American Home Products Corp. v. [read post]
2 May 2022, 7:42 am
The hiQ v. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 9:04 am
McCarthy on Trademarks § 29:1. [read post]
