Search for: "State v. Champagne" Results 81 - 100 of 181
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Nov 2006, 3:45 am
Has someone been slagging off Champagne without specifying whose Champagne? [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 6:43 am
They’re also obviously at risk of simply describing, in a laudatory manner, characteristics of the goods or services in question.CJEU Cases C-398/08 P Audi AG v OHIM (VORSPRUNG DURCH TECHNIK) and C-311/11 P Smart Technologies ULC v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH), already blogged by Jeremy hereand here, set out the position in Europe. [read post]
31 May 2021, 1:36 pm by Howard Knopf
See page 14-15 and FN47 – which at least acknowledges the currently pending Access Copyright v. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 2:53 pm by Steve Hall
The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am by Bexis
General Motors Corp., 575 P.2d 1162, 1168-69 (Cal. 1978); see State Dept. of Health Services v. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 4:30 am
the product as a vodka, displaying it among the vodkas and in some cases expressly stating it to be a vodka. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 4:31 pm
In form 1001E it kept the pre-checked box at 6-1 that states that all European Patent Convention (EPC) contract states are designated. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 6:58 am by Gmlevine
A similar factual matrix was presented in a WIPO proceeding, Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne v. [read post]