Search for: "United States v. Bayer Company" Results 1 - 20 of 131
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jul 2012, 7:19 am
Bayer's settlement includes settlement for all United States consumers who purchased the products within a specified timeframe that has yet to be determined. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 7:19 am
Bayer's settlement includes settlement for all United States consumers who purchased the products within a specified timeframe that has yet to be determined. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 12:23 pm
The Court stated the question thus: Does the Lanham Act allow the owner of a foreign mark that is not registered in the United States and further has never used the mark in United States commerce assert priority rights over the mark that is registered in the United States by another party and used in United States commerce? [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]
7 Feb 2023, 7:49 am by Dennis Crouch
Here, the company has asserted United States Patent Nos 9,944,945  and 7,838,729. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 7:34 am by WIMS
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. [read post]
10 May 2021, 4:54 pm by INFORRM
On 7 January 2021, Facebook suspended the account of Donald Trump, President of the United States for an indefinite period. [read post]
14 Nov 2019, 10:00 pm
Last week, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in U.S. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 10:14 am by Beth Graham
After the Federal Circuit issued its opinion, Dow filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. [read post]
2 Sep 2012, 10:39 pm by Paul Karlsgodt
The specific question presented in Standard fire Insurance Company v. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 8:45 pm by Jon L. Gelman
Generally, a party “is ‘[o]ne by or against whom a lawsuit is brought,’ ” United States ex rel. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 7:44 am by Kali Borkoski
CaldwellDocket: 10-622Issue(s): (1) Whether a binding agreement among multiple states and private companies is immunized from antitrust scrutiny under the state-action immunity doctrine of Parker v. [read post]