Search for: "Work v. Leathers" Results 101 - 120 of 158
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Nov 2011, 7:57 pm
The rest of the next two weeks were work and rain inundated - so much so, that with all the London-cheerleading she was undertaking she has been feeling distinctly English... [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 2:36 am by John L. Welch
., Serial No. 77219184 [Refusal to register the mark depicted below, consisted of "the configuration of interlaced woven strips of leather forming a repeating weave pattern used over all or substantially all of the goods," for wallets, purses, and other leather goods, on the grounds of aesthetic and utilitarian functionality, mere ornamentality, and lack of acquired distinctiveness].October 5, 2011 - 2 PM: Companhia de Bebidas das Americas v. [read post]
17 Apr 2011, 12:30 pm
The complaint cites Justice Story's dicta in Lowell v Lewis (1817) which stated that inventions that are "injurious to the well being, good policy, or sound morals of society" are unpatentable. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 12:30 am
i4i files Supreme Court argument, US Government agrees The i4i v Microsoft battle is definitely an old IP story dating back to 2007, but only three weeks ago i4i filed their reply to Microsoft's appeal in the U.S. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 4:04 pm
Faux leather belt included, peeps, or you can upgrade to a nicer one you already own. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 7:20 am by LawDiva
If you thought you had an ugly divorce, you may reconsider after hearing about Nozolino v. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 1:35 pm by Lisa McElroy
  Marshall was the author of one of the Court’s best-known opinions, tMarbury v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 3:17 pm by David Lat
— author of the colorful opinion in Gustafson v. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 8:17 pm
So here's an excerpt about a kooky little copyright case called Strachborneo v. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 4:56 am
The Stanley Works (Docket Report) District Court C D California: Failure to allege lack of substantial noninfringing use sinks contributory infringement claim: Clayton v. [read post]