Search for: "United States v. United States Shoe Corp."
Results 101 - 120
of 224
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Nov 2013, 7:24 am
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered judgment last year, overturning the district court’s finding that the red soles could not be trademarked. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 1:05 pm
They also expressed concerns that Texas already had the broadest pre-suit discovery mechanisms in the entire country, and referred to the United States Supreme Court’s comment in Chick Kam Choo v. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 8:16 am
Avdel Corp. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 5:02 am
And when the sole opinion of the day was read from the bench, in a rollicking appeal about when an agency action is reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 10:13 am
(In re Teleglobe Communications Corp.), 493 F. 3d 345 (3d Cir. 2007); Garner v. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 7:16 am
See also Pennsylvania State Police v. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 9:00 pm
The path to Iqbal begins with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2007, 8:00 am
Despite the truth to Dear Abby's statement, much of the United States' social policy fails to heed this advice so readily accessible in our daily newspapers. [read post]
19 Jun 2019, 1:53 pm
The Northern District of Illinois recently debated this in Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 1:44 am
” As Danville Plywood Corp. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 1:44 am
” As Danville Plywood Corp. v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 6:00 am
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]
8 Jun 2011, 3:20 pm
United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325 (1962)). [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 1:37 pm
Relying on Red Wing Shoe Co. v. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 9:22 am
Kaplan v. [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 11:28 am
Whole Foods[24] and United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 11:30 am
The other shoe dropped this month in Corber’s companion case Romo v. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 1:16 pm
Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2018, 6:11 pm
Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, argued on behalf of the United States as an amicus. [read post]
