Search for: "Means v. Parker*"
Results 21 - 40
of 796
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Mar 2015, 6:00 pm
Martin v. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 7:07 am
Parker v. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 4:53 pm
Even assuming, arguendo, that the court advised defendant of the scheduled trial date and warned him that the trial would proceed in his absence if he failed to appear (see generally People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141), we conclude that the court failed to inquire into defendant’s absence and to recite “on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that defendant’s absence was deliberate” (People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898, 899, mot to… [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 4:53 pm
Even assuming, arguendo, that the court advised defendant of the scheduled trial date and warned him that the trial would proceed in his absence if he failed to appear (see generally People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141), we conclude that the court failed to inquire into defendant’s absence and to recite “on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that defendant’s absence was deliberate” (People v Brooks, 75 NY2d 898, 899, mot to amend… [read post]
22 Sep 2019, 9:38 am
C. v. [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 8:25 am
“Nursing CE Central” is a descriptive mark with “a weak secondary meaning….the plaintiff makes no meaningful showing that the public, or even those in the market in which it competes, readily recognizes its name. [read post]
1 Sep 2018, 9:28 am
DOES MAY REALLY MEAN MUST ? [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 8:43 am
For example, the court says: “Defendant deliberately and strategically utilized the Internet to spread statements capable of defamatory meaning. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 6:49 am
Co. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2019, 8:09 am
”) Smith v. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 7:48 am
The court doesn’t define what it means by a metatag or establish that “metatags” were the technical mechanism that associated the rival’s products with the trademark owner’s trademark. [read post]
9 Mar 2007, 8:28 am
The DC Circuit, in Parker v. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 10:04 am
See Kachalsky v. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 2:15 pm
The Missouri Supreme Court, in in Mint Properties v. [read post]
22 Apr 2016, 1:08 pm
In Ariosa v. [read post]
27 Jan 2020, 8:00 am
Parker v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 7:46 am
v. [read post]
1 Apr 2022, 3:04 pm
Introduction In Epic Games v. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 4:06 pm
In Mosley v. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 6:49 am
JESSICA PARKER VALENTINE AND BRYAN L. [read post]
