Search for: "People v. McKenna"
Results 81 - 100
of 205
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Sep 2016, 11:33 am
Flat fee v. pay per performance v. tournament—if you do very well, big payment, but otherwise nothing. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 11:57 am
Titanic v. [read post]
8 Feb 2014, 12:18 pm
Copyright: Baker v. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 3:02 pm
May not be case by case but we have to figure out where and why to draw lines, some of which will be normative but not all.McKenna: surveys directed at words—Gucci v. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 4:00 am
McKenna 2018 Contact: contact@chiefjusticekerwin.ca Excerpts from various chapters From Chapter 2: Growing Up – Sarnia According to an oft-repeated story in our family, Patrick, at the age of fourteen, decided to quit high school and get a job to help out with the family’s finances. [read post]
13 Apr 2018, 10:31 am
Keeble v. [read post]
1 Mar 2014, 10:36 am
RT: McKenna says: Might expect that skills would be transferable to new geographic areas, but less so in other product markets. [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 4:01 am
Next is Carpenter v. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 9:00 pm
I even got comments from people that thought I was "absurd" for not listing them. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 9:14 am
(McKenna Q: is there a clear distinction?) [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 10:31 am
Any general claims about distinctiveness must take into account: eligibility for protection/scope of protection; reality v. policy; words v. non-words; perception by single consumers v. aggregate; consumer search costs approach v. product goodwill approach; US v. [read post]
10 Oct 2006, 12:38 pm
Bruce McKenna [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 5:36 am
McKenna: agreed. [read post]
31 Jul 2020, 12:38 pm
Mark McKenna: really stuck on the label “endorsement” for a dead person. [read post]
14 Aug 2010, 5:02 am
Sprigman: this is a specific v. general placebo issue. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 12:25 pm
A: some people incl. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 7:14 am
Inwood v. [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 10:43 am
Sarah Burstein: Reichman is worried that designs can’t satisfy nonobviousness—but the Federal Circuit has removed constraints.Reichman: the Fed Cir has improved it; but still, nonobviousness means that people don’t apply—the lawyers tell the designer there’s no chance. [read post]
30 Nov 2007, 4:21 pm
First, SLP joins folks around the globe including everybody here in blogspace in congratulating CNSA and the people of China on the success of the lunar probe Chang'e I. [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 2:48 pm
McKenna: marketing literature has some answers there.Bone: still normative.McKenna: normative to say “too close,” but descriptive to say there are degrees of closeness.Bone: in a sense blurring and tarnishment are similar. [read post]
