Search for: "United States v. United States Shoe Corp."
Results 41 - 60
of 197
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jan 2011, 11:53 am
United States, 370 U.S. 294 (1962). [read post]
29 Sep 2019, 8:54 pm
United Shoe Machinery Corp. said you had to ignore that problem. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 1:48 pm
” Int’l Shoe Co.v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 5:57 am
United States, released earlier this month. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 11:29 am
” United States v. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 5:41 pm
United States District Court, D. [read post]
17 May 2019, 1:07 pm
Levay v. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 7:46 am
United States, No. [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]
18 Jan 2021, 7:42 am
Plexus Corp. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2017, 7:55 am
’”Int’l Shoe Co. v. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 1:50 am
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]
21 Mar 2011, 7:50 am
Co. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 3:59 am
SHAPIRO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK;2009 U.S. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 3:42 pm
In Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 1:20 am
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]
5 Mar 2015, 5:52 am
Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), and not on International Shoe Co. v. [read post]