Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In addressing disputes involving contracts of insurance, insureds often argue that the court is obligated to construe any perceived ambiguity against insurers. The rules governing contract interpretation are, however, far more nuanced, and more even-handed.
This article examines the question of whether a judge can refuse on religious grounds to perform same-sex marriages.
If you file a Complaint for Divorce, which is, after all, a civil action, can the party accused of adultery plead the Fifth Amendment to refuse to respond to inquiries that touch on the affair?
A challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is now the official property of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. But the constitutional issues are not all the court must tackle.
Features
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Features
The Supreme Court in <i>Bilski v. Kappos</i>, affirmed the long-standing maxim that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are the only three exceptions to broad categories of patent-eligible subject matter. Two schools of thought in the Federal Circuit, one led by Judge Randall R. Rader and the other by Judge Timothy B. Dyk, have been competing for development and application of a framework to identify an abstract idea.
In <i>Research in Motion Ltd. v. Defining Presence Marketing Group, Inc. and Axel Ltd. Co.</i>, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board addressed whether Defining Presence Marketing Group and Axel Ltd. could obtain trademark registrations for CRACKBERRY for various goods and services. Research in Motion, producer of the BlackBerry device, opposed the registrations based on a likelihood of confusion and dilution with its BLACKBERRY group of marks.
Features
When Jewish parties who have had a religion wedding civilly divorce, can one party be compelled to grant a religious divorce? A look at recent litigation.
Features
Although acknowledging that the COACH mark for handbags and other luxury goods was famous enough for that fame to be a strong factor in a likelihood of confusion analysis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has concluded that there was insufficient proof that the mark was a "household name" that was famous enough to support a claim of dilution against a third party's COACH-branded educational materials.