Search for: "United States v. Shields" Results 101 - 120 of 1,795
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Sep 2020, 9:15 am by Kristin Doyle
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) similarly requires consideration of secondary consideration evidence (MPEP 2145 (9th ed. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 9:01 pm by Neil Cahn
There was no record shown for monies and income transfer in and out of the United States to and from St. [read post]
9 Jan 2007, 3:35 am
Yesterday the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Universal Church v. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 5:14 am by Richard Altieri, Margaret Taylor
On June 1, President Trump spoke to governors and the public about deploying the military within the United States. [read post]
3 Feb 2008, 9:14 pm
The blogosphere is filled with rather colorful metaphors and descriptions for what the Oregon Supreme Court was saying to the United States Supreme Court in its recent opinion in Philp Morris v. [read post]
19 Feb 2008, 1:23 am
The three United States patents at issue, which cover syringes having needle shield safety devices and may be used with pre-filled pharmaceutical injection syringes, are owned by Saftey Syringes, Inc. [read post]
13 Oct 2020, 7:22 am by Kate Evans
Some state statutes sweep broadly, like the Georgia law at issue in Moncrieffe v. [read post]
The matter, arising from the transfer of Schrems’ personal data by Facebook Ireland to Facebook Inc. in the United States, presented questions concerning the transfer of personal data from the EEA to a third country without an adequacy determination. [read post]
The matter, arising from the transfer of Schrems’ personal data by Facebook Ireland to Facebook Inc. in the United States, presented questions concerning the transfer of personal data from the EEA to a third country without an adequacy determination. [read post]
15 Jan 2013, 6:15 am by Beth Hutchens
Alvarez: Trademark Dilution and the First AmendmentEarlier this week, the United States Supreme Court handed down its opinion on the Stolen Valor Act (18 U.S.C. [read post]