Search for: "United States v. United States Shoe Corp." Results 101 - 120 of 215
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Sep 2015, 6:00 am by David Kris
Wiretap Act (also known as Title III) prohibits the interception of a live communication (e.g., a telephone call) only if the interception occurs in the United States; it does not prohibit or regulate wiretaps (interception) conducted abroad.[8]  Similarly, the U.S. [read post]
8 Apr 2012, 8:55 am
Of course, there is still that pesky little confusion test for Gucci, which in the Second Circuit is the Polaroid Crop v Polarad Elecs Corp (1961) test (see test here as applied to another famous shoe battle, Louboutin v YSL). [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 11:30 am
  The other shoe dropped this month in Corber’s companion case Romo v. [read post]
9 Jan 2018, 6:11 pm by Lara Fowler
Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, argued on behalf of the United States as an amicus. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:20 am by Edith Roberts
” At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro and others highlight the amicus brief the Institute has filed in United States v. [read post]
6 May 2022, 6:10 am by Noah J. Phillips
In 1977, in GTE Sylvania, the Courtheld that vertical customer and territorial restraints should be judged under the rule of reason.[17] In 1979, in BMI, it held that a blanket license issued by a clearinghouse of copyright owners that set a uniform price and prevented individual negotiation with licensees was a necessary precondition for the product and was thus subject to the rule of reason.[18] In 1984, in Jefferson Parish, the Court rejected automatic application of the per se rule to tying.[19]… [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 12:47 pm by Bexis
Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (where the defendant wasn’t very “international”), and World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. [read post]