Search for: "United States v. United States Shoe Corp." Results 41 - 60 of 197
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Mar 2010, 5:57 am by Adam Chandler
United States, released earlier this month. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 1:20 pm
On October 14, 2014, Converse filed a complaint with the ITC alleging violations of section 337 by various respondents in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of shoes that infringe its trademark. [read post]
5 Aug 2007, 5:35 am
OpinionPub DateShort Title/District 07a0287p.06 2007/07/30 Natl Sur Corp v. [read post]
20 Sep 2009, 9:33 pm
Asics America Corp., Central Dist. of Calif. - USOC sued shoe seller for allegedly using “OLYMPICS” prominently in advertising its athletic shoes, including in the statement, “You Wear the Medals. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 1:50 am by Ben Vernia
The Eleventh Circuit quickly disposed of Campbell’s argument that the award was not taxable because, as “assignee of the United States’ claim against Lockheed, he stands in the shoes of the government in receipt of a nontaxable recovery. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 3:59 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
SHAPIRO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK;2009 U.S. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 1:20 am by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2022, 1:30 pm
’’ Despite the choice of law provision, George Frank unilaterally added the following language at the end of paragraph 19: ‘‘Since this is a contract for an agreement taking place in the state of Connecticut, Connecticut laws will supersede those of California. [read post]