Search for: "State v. Champagne"
Results 121 - 140
of 181
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jul 2011, 2:12 pm
US law has also protected geographic indications through common law trade mark law without need for a registration ( the "Cognac" case - Institut National Des Appellations v Brown-Forman Corp (TTAB 1998)).However, when it comes to produce and products which are of such strong cultural and heritage state significance like the New Mexico chile, it is the state's government that usually applies for a certification mark. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 3:12 pm
In NML Capital v Argentina, the question for the Supreme Court was whether one such investor, a New York fund that bought into Argentinian bonds which were subsequently defaulted, could enforce its judgment against assets of the Argentinian state in the United Kingdom. [read post]
16 Jul 2011, 10:59 am
But everyone should keep the corks in the champagne. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 2:53 pm
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]
14 Jul 2011, 11:20 am
In Champagne v. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 9:10 am
Today it was the turn of spirits, with Joined Cases C-4/10 and C-27/10 Bureau national interprofessionel du Cognac v Gust. [read post]
4 Jun 2011, 7:55 pm
By Zak GriefenTibbetts v. [read post]
30 May 2011, 4:55 am
Mountain States/Rosen L.L.C. [read post]
9 May 2011, 4:28 am
Wares and Services Manual expands (Canadian Trademark Blog) Trade-marks: Use it as registered: Bigras v. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 4:00 am
The latest installment is Republic of Ecuador v. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:52 am
Nevertheless, the newspaper repeated the defamation: in an article alongside a photograph of Watters the newspaper had stated: We may have to apologise to this revolting pervert but will we mean it? [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 9:01 am
” See Womble v. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 5:02 am
In Enlow v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 2:08 am
Nicholas J points out, however, that the High Court stated that s 123 embodies the principle in Champagne Hiedsieck. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 3:07 am
(Docket Report) District Court N D Illinois: Loosely related state law claims sufficient for supplemental jurisdiction: Von Holdt v. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 5:00 pm
Champagne, of course. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 1:44 am
Ambu AS (Patently-O) CAFC: Preamble held not limiting because body of claim sets forth complete invention: American Medical Systems v Biolitec (Filewrapper) District Court E D Michigan: General allegations of deceptive intent fail to state a claim for false marking: Josephs v. [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 2:28 am
Champagne corks may have been popping in Chancery Lane last night, but the success of the Law Society in its challenge to the Legal Services Commission’s family tender process is no more than a small victory in a war that cannot be won.As the UK Human Rights Blog states, the decision "may only serve to delay the inevitable ... with the system of legal aid under enormous budgetary pressure". [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 2:51 pm
At the rate things are going in the case of State v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
General Motors Corp., 575 P.2d 1162, 1168-69 (Cal. 1978); see State Dept. of Health Services v. [read post]
