(California Court of Appeal) - Revived claims brought by members of the band WAR alleging that their music publisher breached a contract by failing to pay them certain song royalties. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying Defendant’s motion to strike. Plaintiff represented deceased celebrity, Jenni Rivera, and they sought to restrict disclosure by Defendant broadcaster of certain information. Appeals court ruled the First Amendment protected broadcaster’s use of information and reversed trial court order.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a petition filed by Adidas, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's final judgment cancelling a Church's trademarks for failing to use the marks in commerce before registering them, on the grounds of the Church's de minimus sale of two marked hats to an out-of-state reside, is reversed where: 1) the Lanham Act defines commerce as all activity regulable by Congress; and 2) the Church's sale to an out-of-state resident fell within Congress’s power to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition brought under the Lanham Act by a producer of karaoke music tracks, alleging that the defendants performed karaoke shows using unauthorized 'media-shifted' files that had been copied onto computer hard drives from the compact discs released by the plaintiff, the district court's dismissal is affirmed where plaintiff did not state a claim under the Lanham Act because there was no likelihood of consumer confusion about the origin of a good properly cognizable in a claim of trademark infringement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's summary judgment in favor of Fox, holding that their use of the name 'Empire' was protected by the First Amendment and therefore was outside of the reach of the Lanham Act and their use of the word as a show title did not infringe on a record label's trademark rights.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacating the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant, Whole Foods, in a trademark infringement case, affirming the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and remanding a case in which disputed material facts relating to the affirmative defenses of laches and acquiescence hadn't been resolved in the case of a company that used to sell EatRight cookies to Whole Foods, who later began marketing food products under the mark EatRight America.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing plaintiffs opposition to the registration of defendants trademarks including the term ZERO. The Federal Court of Appeals determined that the Board erred in legal framing of the question and failed to determine whether the marks were at least highly descriptive.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Judgment affirmed in favor of plaintiff regarding a trademark infringement matter. The court held that because of the delay of the defendant in challenging plaintiff's trademark, the doctrine of laches could be used as a defense. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply the doctrine of unclean hands or the inevitable confusion doctrine against plaintiff.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed summary judgment for an apparel company in its trademark infringement action. A company that sold leather jackets branded ROGUE contended that a commercial brewery that sold ROGUE-branded beer had infringed its trademark by using the name on t‐shirts and hats. The Second Circuit held that the apparel company was not entitled to summary judgment, because the brewery was the senior user and the evidence did not show that it was precluded by laches.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by a financial services company, holding that the use of its trademarks by a publishing company constituted nominative fair use.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute over ownership of a trademark in a restaurant name, affirmed a bench trial decision in part and reversed it in part.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. Finding no clear error in the district court’s determination that Defendant’s trademark infringement was willful, the award of gross profits was proper. However, the question of attorney’s fees and pre-judgement interest is remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Supreme Court) - This case involved the State of Washington's tax on fuel importers who travel by public highway. The Yakama Nation contended that its 1855 treaty with the United States forbids that tax from being imposed upon fuel importers who are tribal members. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the tribe. Justice Breyer's plurality opinion was joined by only two other justices. Justices Gorsuch and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a death row inmate's execution by lethal injection would not subject him to constitutionally impermissible suffering, even if his unusual health issues meant that he would experience particularly excruciating pain. The inmate contended that his medical condition meant Missouri's legal injection protocol was unconstitutional as applied to him. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that he failed to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test. Justice Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that members of the Crow Tribe retain a broad right under an 1868 Treaty to hunt on land that is now part of the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming. One issue was whether the treaty hunting rights expired when Wyoming became a state. The U.S. Supreme Court, divided 5-4, ruled favorably to the Tribe. Justice Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed what law applies on the Outer Continental Shelf, holding that California wage-and-hour law was inapplicable to a worker on an offshore drilling platform. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, if federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the federal Atomic Energy Act did not preempt a Virginia law prohibiting uranium mining. While six justices agreed that the state ban on uranium mining was not preempted, they divided on broader questions concerning statutory interpretation and preemption doctrine, and thus were unable to agree on the rationale for the decision. Justice Gorsuch delivered a plurality opinion, and several justices concurred in the judgment only.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed whether the Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits unsolicited fax advertisements that promote free goods, such as no-cost magazine subscriptions and catalogs. The specific issue here had to do with whether the district court was required to adopt the Federal Communications Commission's interpretation of the statute. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that it found the question difficult to answer, and remanded with directions for the lower courts to resolve two preliminary issues. Justice Breyer delivered the Court's opinion.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed whether the State of Mississippi's peremptory strike of a particular black prospective juror was motivated by discriminatory intent. Justice Kavanaugh, who delivered the opinion of the 7-2 Court, explicitly stated that the decision broke no new legal ground but rather simply reinforced the Batson decision, in this case involving a man's sixth murder trial (the other five had ended in hung juries or else been reversed on appeal).

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a property owner whose property has been taken by a local government may go directly to federal court to assert a claim under the Takings Clause. Overruled a 1985 Supreme Court precedent (Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City), which had said that a property owner must first seek just compensation under state law in state court before bringing a federal takings claim under Section 1983. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Struck down a Tennessee requirement that applicants for a license to operate a retail liquor store have resided in the State for the prior two years. Held that the residency requirement violates the Commerce Clause because it blatantly favors the State's residents and has little relationship to public health and safety, and further held that the Twenty-first Amendment does not save the state law. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the 7-2 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiff is a Vietnam veteran who sought disability benefits from the Veterans Administration for post-traumatic stress. The VA eventually granted benefits but only from the motion to re-open his case and not from the date of the original application. Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling citing the deference doctrine. The US Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to have the lower court determine if the deference doctrine applied in this case.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the government's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act. However, the sole stated reason for reinstating the question "seems to have been contrived," and therefore it was appropriate to remand the case back to the agency on that ground. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court's opinion, some portions of which were unanimous while others received the support of only four justices in various groupings.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that when a motorist suspected of drunk driving is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered a plurality opinion, joined by three other justices. Justice Thomas concurring in the judgment.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an immigration matter, held that a Honduran woman who prevailed on a petition for review was not entitled to recover attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The government's position was substantially justified, in this case involving a perceived-homosexuality asylum claim.

(United States Second Circuit) - Upheld a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that a lawful permanent resident was ineligible for cancellation of removal. He had been found removable based on his New York convictions for endangering the welfare of a child. Denied the Irish citizen's petition for review.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Deny petition for review. Plaintiff appealed dismissal of application for asylum and withholding of removal. Petition for stay of removal was granted, but denied the award of attorney fees. Plaintiff appealed the denial of attorney fees. Appeals court ruled that Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act because the government’s actions were substantially justified.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

RT @rickhanlonii: It's free

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

Aside from a few wild guesses, Izuku had no idea how this had happened. But here he was, about to bear All Might's child, and all he could think to blame it on was a jar of rice.

Yeet the rich

RT @nikolas_linck: Pankstraße, Berlin-Wedding: Kostenloses 5-geschossiges Parkhaus steht werktags zu 95% leer. Draußen fehlt der Radweg. Denn da stehen schon Autos, kostenlos. Wer kann das Parkplatz-Gejammer von ADAC, "Unternehmensverbänden" und co. eigentlich ernst nehmen, solange es sowas gibt?

r/Coronavirus: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus strain (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in the city of Wuhan, China. This subreddit seeks to monitor the …

RT @EU_Commission: Today is #EuropeDay. It marks the 70th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, a starting point towards the EU as we know it today. ???????? Only through unity and solidarity are we able to maintain the European project. Together we are stronger.

I’m always talking about ducks

RT @antimega: At @GDSTeam we’re running a number of online events for Global Accessibility Awareness Day on 21 May - please join us! #accessibility #AccessibilityRegulations

RT @onward_always: 8. Mai 1945. Tel Aviv feiert den Verlust deutscher Gestaltungsmöglichkeit.

https://t.co/rl92rXlZSQ

if ur looking for a non problematic food media fav.... guy fieri is right there

This body at this thickness and weight. Specifically 4 and not 5. Edge-to-edge screen, Apple Pay. Notch is fine. Wireless charging if possible. Compromise on battery and camera. Would happily pay more than the current SE. https://t.co/ITq0RamUb3

Men's & women's Mod clothing at Madcap England. Huge range of boating blazers, flares, racing jumpers, polos and dresses. Free UK delivery orders over £75.

In an age of trolls, economic insecurity and social isolation, mixed martial arts gives fans a rush of harsh reality.