Search for: "US v. Butts"
Results 1 - 20
of 661
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Dec 2009, 10:11 am
As Wadlé notes, the fact that THE NORTH FACE is an especially famous mark actually helps Winkelmann’s parody defense for his use of the THE SOUTH BUTT mark. [read post]
15 Feb 2008, 2:35 am
Regina v Zafar; Regina v Malik; Regina v Raja; Regina v Iqbal; Regina v Butt Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) “A person possessed an article for terrorist purposes only if he possessed it in circumstances which gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that he intended it to be used for the purpose of the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism. [read post]
20 Feb 2008, 2:44 am
R v Zafar; R v Malik; R v Raja; R v Iqbal; R v Butt [2008] EWCA Crim 184; [2008] WLR (D) 51 “A person possessed an article for terrorist purposes if he possessed it in circumstances which gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that he intended it to be used for the purpose of the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 4:56 am
” The North Face’s legal counsel sent Winkelmann a cease and desist letter in August 2009, requesting that he stop using the South Butt name and logo and halt all sales, production and promotion of South Butt products. [read post]
5 Jan 2010, 3:45 pm
In Jorsache v. [read post]
5 Nov 2017, 3:31 am
However, Dr Butt’s case seems materially different from British Chiropractic Association v Singh ([2011] 1 WLR 133) which was relied on by the Judge. [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 7:32 am
This also ignores well established fair use law that allows for parodies of trademarks. [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 5:15 am
This Case of the Week comes to us from Virginia: Williams v. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 6:00 am
You have to constantly police it and prevent others from using or diluting it to maintain strong protection. [read post]
11 Nov 2017, 2:31 am
The decision in Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB) clarifies the application of the statutory defence of honest opinion under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013. [read post]
21 Dec 2021, 2:59 pm
In ECB USA, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 1:12 pm
Butte Environmental Council filed suit against the Corps, FWS and the City in federal district court. [read post]
12 Feb 2010, 1:09 pm
v. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 8:51 am
Also note that if the Garcia v. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 1:14 pm
Under the Ginsberg v. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 11:11 pm
“What what, in the butt? [read post]
25 Aug 2022, 11:34 am
At its weekly conference held on August 24, 2022, the California Supreme Court acted to modify its recent majority opinion in County of Butte v. [read post]
2 Jan 2018, 9:03 am
… The case of Nebraska v. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 12:00 am
A designated smoking area:(i) must be located at least twenty (20) feet from any operable window or door used by the public of an indoor area of a multi-unit residence where smoking is prohibited;(ii) must not include, and must be at least twenty (20) feet from, outdoor areas primarily used by children including, but not limited to, areas improved or designated for play or swimming;(iii) must be no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total outdoor area of the premises… [read post]
7 Oct 2020, 7:14 pm
United States v. [read post]
