Search for: "Williams v. Best Buy" Results 61 - 80 of 262
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jul 2011, 7:49 am by Eric
* Best Buy is chasing lots of folks to enforce its "Geek Squad" trademark. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 6:55 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Best Buy Co., 818 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2016), the Eighth Circuit rejected the price maintenance theory, over the objections of the dissent, which pointed out the circuit split on the issue. [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 6:48 pm
It was supposed to buy "troubled assets," hence the ‘T' and the ‘A'. [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 7:14 am by James Williams
The post Copyright Basics: What You Need to Know to Protect Your Creative Works appeared first on Tingen & Williams. [read post]
18 Sep 2005, 7:10 pm
We work best when things are routine and we know what we can expect in each class. [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 4:01 pm by Venkat Balasubramani
Best Buy Judge Dismisses Claims Against Pandora for Violating Michigan’s Version of the VPPA – Deacon v. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 7:48 am by Venkat Balasubramani
Best Buy Seventh Circuit: No Private Cause of Action Under the Video Privacy Protection Act for Failure to Purge Information–Sterk v. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 7:00 am by Venkat Balasubramani
Best Buy Seventh Circuit: No Private Cause of Action Under the Video Privacy Protection Act for Failure to Purge Information–Sterk v. [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 5:36 am
The programs detected the conditions in which Coscia's strategy worked best (id. [read post]
24 Apr 2010, 5:01 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Meyer, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC Moderator: William J. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:56 pm
Electronic Arts’s “Madden NFL 10″ for Sony PlayStation 2 is displayed at a Best Buy in Mountain View, Calif., Wednesday, July 7, 2010. [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 6:06 am
Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit 2015) (`[A] corporate shareholder has a legitimate expectation of privacy in corporate property only if the shareholder demonstrates a personal expectation of privacy in the areas searched independent of his status as a shareholder’); Williams v. [read post]