Search for: "United States v. Lowe's Inc" Results 581 - 600 of 1,237
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Feb 2015, 9:43 am by James Kachmar
Turning to the issue of likelihood of consumer confusion, the Ninth Circuit stated that it had to use the factors from AMF, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 6:23 am by Doorey
The Supreme Court of Canada has never decided a workplace race discrimination case in the Charter era (although that will end soon, as it heard arguments in Bombardier Inc. v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 6:43 am by Schachtman
Various companies — Caterpillar, Inc., Aurora Pump Co., Innophos, Inc., Rockwell Automation, Inc., United States Steel Corp., F.H. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 4:14 am by Kevin LaCroix
  The possibility of litigation reform through bylaw revision received a substantial boost in May 2014, when the Delaware Supreme Court in the ATP Tours, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 10:47 am by Barry Sookman
This post reviews some of the highlights of the court battles of 2014 in Canada and other Commonwealth countries, the United States and the European Union. [read post]
30 Dec 2014, 10:36 am by Don T. Hibner, Jr.
House of Brides subsequently brought an action in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, for violations of the Sherman Act, and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 8:47 am by Steven Boutwell
The low point of the punitive damage wave was marked by the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Guevera v. [read post]
15 Nov 2014, 1:54 pm by Kirk Jenkins
In 2008 – two years after the Supreme Court’s judgment became final – the FTC filed an amicus brief in an unrelated case before the United States Supreme Court saying that it had never intended to specifically authorize the use of those terms. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 4:55 pm by Steven Boutwell
City of New Orleans, 2005-0489 (La. 2/22/06), 924 So. 2d 104, and illustrated in cases such as Roof Technologies, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 7:06 am by Joy Waltemath
” Even if it did, the appeals court explained, its “bare textual analysis of ERISA” alone did not mirror the contextual requirements found in United States v. [read post]