Search for: "People v. Duran"
Results 1 - 20
of 38
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Aug 2016, 4:22 pm
In Duran v. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 4:00 am
Last Tuesday, March 4, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Duran v. [read post]
29 Oct 2022, 12:07 pm
People v. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 6:56 pm
On December 17, 2010, in Duran v. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 11:08 am
National Bank Assn.) and for the worst majority opinion (People v. [read post]
14 Mar 2007, 4:11 am
People v. [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 5:48 am
People v. [read post]
20 Feb 2010, 4:41 am
People v. [read post]
11 Mar 2009, 9:00 pm
Praised be Maryland's highest court for invalidating a judge's sentencing condition to register as a sex offender for a defendant who entered a guilty plea to indecent exposure. blank">Duran v. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 3:34 am
| BREAKING: Unanimous Supreme Court in Samsung v Apple finds that damages may be based on a component, not whole product | (Belatedly) remembering Raymond Niro, the most influential person in patent litigation whom you may have never heard of | Genuine use of three dimensional EU trade marks - heated arguments over ovens | Wild Boys Sometimes Lose It: Duran Duran fail to reclaim their US copyright |Around the IP Blogs Photo credit: Steve Jurvetson [read post]
28 Dec 2008, 7:57 am
Duran, 957 F.2d 499, 505 (7th Cir. 1992). [read post]
16 Jul 2019, 12:20 pm
In McCleery v. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 5:00 am
Court of Appeal Opinion: Duran v. [read post]
22 Jul 2016, 12:18 pm
Duran v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 2:26 pm
(People v. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 9:35 pm
Duran v. [read post]
6 Jan 2017, 2:01 am
"* The Supreme People's Court of China's Michael Jordan Trademark DecisionFormer GuestKat Mike Mireles and Kat friend Henry Liao dicuss the fresh court decision (from the Supreme People’s Court of China) on the Michael Jordan trade mark/name-personality case. [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 7:21 pm
In Duran v. [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 10:47 am
” The last of this week’s new relists, Duran v. [read post]
21 Mar 2014, 11:28 am
See Ocampo-Duran v. [read post]
