Search for: "United States v. Beebe"
Results 1 - 20
of 44
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Oct 2013, 11:10 am
United States (Alvarez Machain II), 266 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2001). [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 3:49 pm
Beebe v. [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 3:04 am
Professors Barton Beebe and Jeanne C. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 9:38 am
— United States v. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 3:01 am
Belmora says that one need not own a trademark in the United States to bring a Section 43(a) claim (Bayer owned the mark FLANAX in Mexico). [read post]
12 May 2015, 10:49 am
State v. [read post]
2 Mar 2014, 1:42 pm
The Supreme Court has expressed concerns how the facial challenge might be used to undermine the legislative process, and accordingly, the challenging party is held to a higher standard of proof: To succeed in a typical facial attack, [the respondent] would have to establish “that no set of circumstances exists under which [the statute] would be valid”, United States v. [read post]
17 Mar 2008, 1:21 pm
" But it was unwilling to make the leap to the "general consuming public," a group it defined as "nearly the entire population of the United States. [read post]
21 Jul 2015, 2:45 am
Moreover, many of the seminal cases in the area predate such important new contributions to Commerce Clause juris prudence as United States v. [read post]
7 Oct 2007, 7:33 am
In a case I worked on, XALATAN v. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 11:48 am
United States (W.D. [read post]
6 Aug 2008, 7:54 pm
On Tuesday, The Arc of the United States, which provides advocacy and services for the developmentally disabled, issued a statement asking Beebe to follow the Parole Board's recommendation. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 12:25 pm
Individuals tend to fare worse (.65 v. .74 for use, .27 v. .37 for ITU). [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 6:29 pm
From there, we turned to the rise of the right of publicity in the United States, A Right is Born: Celebrity, Property and Postmodern Lawmaking, by Mark Bartholomew, who explored a fascinating tension regarding the growth of the right of publicity both before and after the 1980s. [read post]
2 Feb 2020, 11:28 pm
Likewise, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) held repeatedly that comparable strategies could constitute bad faith [e.g. here, here and here]. [read post]
7 Apr 2016, 2:27 pm
This was an appeal from the United States District Court for theMiddle District of Florida in No. 3:11-cv-00819-TJC-JRK,Judge Timothy J. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 9:16 am
Unite Here * Trademark Dilution Symposium Videos * Griper Selling Anti-Walmart Items Through CafePress Doesn’t Infringe or Dilute–Smith v. [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 11:30 pm
Last summer, the Supreme Court put its money where its mouth was in terms of federalism doctrine in its landmark decision about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in NFIB v. [read post]
27 Mar 2022, 3:34 pm
Attorney’s Fees in a Copyright Action« Win One for the Gipper » Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CV-1157 Just as famous as some great upsets in sports history are the motivational speeches that inspired them. [read post]
16 Sep 2014, 4:21 am
The court begins its discussion by stating that “Transformation almost always occurs when the new work ‘does something more than repackage or republish the original copyrighted work. [read post]
