Search for: "Oregon & California R. Co v. United States No. 1" Results 61 - 73 of 73
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2009, 5:24 am
’ (China Law Blog)   Europe ECJ finds similar marks on wine and glasses not likely to cause confusion: Waterford Wedgewood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) AG Colomer opines in Maple leaf trade mark battle: joined cases American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates SA (IPKat) (Excess Copyright) CFI: Restitutio and time limits: how does the law stand now for CTMs? [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 7:59 pm by Steven M. Taber
– Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, July 2, 2010 In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree, to address a lawsuit filed by Comite Civico Del Valle,Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 9:45 am by Eugene Volokh
Set aside for now whether such a mandate is good policy, whether it's consistent with the First Amendment, and whether it's consistent with the Dormant Commerce Clause.[1] Is such a state law preempted by § 230(c)(2)? [read post]
19 Jan 2014, 2:16 pm by Ken White
Cox Loses In The Trial Court, Which Gets It Wrong Padrick sued in United States District Court in Oregon. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 3:01 pm
The Reporters stated that manufacturing defects should continue to be decided under a strict liability regime, but they proposed a radical new concept for design defect cases based on what they claimed was the majority rule in the United States. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 9:01 pm by Anita Ramasastry
Background: The Breach of Target’s Security Target is based in Minneapolis and has almost 1,800 stores in the United States. [read post]