Search for: "United States v. Bayer"
Results 21 - 40
of 294
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2012, 3:46 pm
Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. ---, 131 S.Ct. 2368, 2011 WL 768649 (6/16/11) (blogged here) the Supreme Court of the United States held that a District Court's denial of a Rule 23 class certification motion does not prevent separate plaintiffs from seeking certification in a separate state court action. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 4:17 pm
On August 31, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a petition for writ of certiorari in The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 4:35 pm
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Bayer’s Section 43(a) false association and false advertising claims under FRCP 12(b)(6) and entered judgment on the pleadings as to Bayer’s Section 14(3) claim, ruling that the Lanham Act does not allow an owner of a foreign mark not registered in the United States, who does not use the mark in the United States [Bayer], to assert priority rights over a mark that… [read post]
3 May 2011, 5:37 am
Bayer Corporation, and AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 6:27 am
This morning the Court will hear oral argument in Smith v. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 2:44 am
Belmora LLC v. [read post]
4 Feb 2021, 3:19 am
Belmora LLC v. [read post]
6 Oct 2009, 12:20 am
In February, Bayer Corp., a unit of Leverkusen, Germany- based Bayer, announced it would spend $20 million for "corrective advertising" as part of a 27-state settlement of claims it misled consumers about Yaz. [read post]
16 Dec 2016, 8:23 pm
Bayer Consumer Care AG 16-548 Issue: Whether Sections 14(3) and 43(a) of the Lanham Act allow a foreign business that has neither used nor registered its trademark in the United States to sue the owner of a U.S. trademark for conduct relating to the owner’s use of its U.S. mark. [read post]
4 Jun 2020, 2:03 pm
On June 3, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the EPA’s conditional registrations for three dicamba-based herbicides: XtendiMax (Bayer, formally Monsanto), Engenia (BASF), and FeXapan (Corveta, formally DuPont). [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 4:53 am
2008) (dismissing state consumer fraud and false advertising and RICO claims); Ethex v. [read post]
11 May 2016, 4:03 am
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Belmora LLC v Bayer Consumer Care AG, et al., Appeal No. 15-1335 (4th Cir. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 5:54 am
Dow AgroSciences, LLC v. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 10:58 am
Belmora LLC v. [read post]
6 Jul 2021, 3:43 am
Not since the FLANAX case (Bayer v. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 3:46 pm
rejected Plaintiffs' argument that an antitrust stalwart, United States v. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 2:17 pm
Mensing case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on June 23, 2011. [read post]
3 Sep 2009, 6:18 am
" The article states that according to the Judicial Business of the United States Courts: Annual Report of the Director, tbl. [read post]
7 Feb 2023, 7:49 am
Here, the company has asserted United States Patent Nos 9,944,945 and 7,838,729. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 7:34 am
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. [read post]
