Search for: "USA V LYONS"
Results 1 - 20
of 27
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Nov 2023, 12:30 pm
Automotive-parts supplier Prevent USA brings antitrust suit against Volkswagen in the Eastern District of Texas. [read post]
29 Sep 2023, 4:00 am
Yahoo News – Ken Dilanian and Frank Thorp V (NBC News) | Published: 9/27/2023 U.S. [read post]
9 Sep 2020, 6:16 am
MAGARINO, Petitioner, v. [read post]
13 May 2020, 1:23 pm
Lyon v. [read post]
5 Sep 2019, 7:07 am
Green (Professor of Law, Wake Forest University, North Carolina, USA); Marie-Cécile Escande-Varniol (Professor of Law, Universidad Lumière Lyon 2) Co-directors Manuel Paniagua Zurera (Professor of Commercial Law, Loyola University Andalusia); Gloria Fernández- Pacheco Alises (Assistant Professor of Criminology, Loyola University Andalusia); Maria Lubomira Kubica… [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 4:10 pm
The Riley Case (2014) (Riley v. [read post]
25 May 2016, 1:39 pm
Tercinet, EM Lyon Business School (France)· Comment le juriste français projette sa vision du droit dans le contexte de la mondialisation : une affaire d’influence ? [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 12:13 am
In State v. [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 12:13 am
In State v. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 11:27 am
,Inc. v. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 1:00 pm
That is what Katie Lyon did when she made the painful decision to end a wanted pregnancy after getting a fetal diagnosis of spina bifida and a tethered spinal cord. [read post]
17 May 2015, 2:57 am
Siehr recalled the landmark cases of Attorney-General of New Zealand v Ortiz, [1984] AC 1, Winkworth v. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 6:54 pm
Salim Shah and his companies Sarfez Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sarfez USA, Inc. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 10:11 am
The plaintiff in U.S. ex rel Simoneaux v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2010 WL 2640170, at *2 (W.D. [read post]
17 Jun 2014, 1:34 pm
Lyons) or a “substantial risk” (Monsanto Co. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 8:09 am
As discussed here, if considered satire, not parody, Dumb Starbucks could be liable for infringement (Dr Seuss Enterprises v Penguin Books USA (1997)).It seems unlikely that adding DUMB- provides enough distinction for it to avoid being considered an unauthorised derivative of Starbucks’ copyrighted works. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 2:43 am
Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-02 (1983). [read post]
