Search for: "No. 78-1395"
Results 1 - 8
of 8
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Mar 2019, 4:00 am
" Citing Matter of Sullivan v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 160 AD3d 1395, the Appellate Division also rejected Petitioner's argument that SDHR was required to hold a hearing on her complaint before it could make a probable cause determination. [read post]
13 Mar 2019, 4:00 am
" Citing Matter of Sullivan v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 160 AD3d 1395, the Appellate Division also rejected Petitioner's argument that SDHR was required to hold a hearing on her complaint before it could make a probable cause determination. [read post]
19 Apr 2008, 6:24 am
" It is appropriate in such a case for the PTO to issue an ornamental refusal if the proposed mark is decorative or ornamental on its face.The Board therefore found that the proposed marks constituted mere ornamentation and failed to function as trademarks.TTABlog comment: Curiously, there was no discussion, or even mention, of the CAFC's decision in In re Slokevage, 78 USPQ2d 1395 (Fed. [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 3:20 pm
Fund (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1392–1395.) [read post]
26 Oct 2011, 4:30 am
Legal Ethics 1395 (Fall 2005) Mark Moller,The Rule of Law Problem: Unconstitutional Class Actions and Options for Reform,28 Harv. [read post]
26 Oct 2011, 4:30 am
Legal Ethics 1395 (Fall 2005) Mark Moller,The Rule of Law Problem: Unconstitutional Class Actions and Options for Reform,28 Harv. [read post]
24 Dec 2007, 7:01 am
Contant #78-1, 2, 3 St. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 4:19 pm
Some case law is worth reading. [read post]
