Supreme Court of Canada renders landmark decisions on the famous BARBIE and VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-marks
|
|
- Vernon Peters
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Supreme Court of Canada renders landmark decisions on the famous BARBIE and VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-marks By Mark MacNeil In the much-anticipated appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada concerning famous trade-marks, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeals in Mattel, Inc. v Canada Inc. 1 and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltée 2. In the Mattel decision, Mattel unsuccessfully argued that its BARBIE trade-mark for dolls is famous enough that consumers would likely make the mistaken inference that the small Montreal-based BARBIE s restaurant chain has something to do with the doll people 3. Mattel s appeal was dismissed and the registration of the BARBIE'S & DESIGN trade-mark in association with restaurant services was allowed. The Supreme Court concluded that the BARBIE trade-mark is not so well known as to transcend beyond the doll market. The Supreme Court used the distinctive red and white VIRGIN trade-mark as an example of a trade-mark that has transcended its product and service line, from records to airlines to insurance to superstores. Similarly, in the Veuve Clicquot decision, the appellant argued that the famous VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark transcended the champagne industry. Consequently, the appellant argued that the respondents CLIQUOT trade-mark registered in association with retail stores specializing in mid-priced women s clothing was infringing the famous VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark, and depreciating the goodwill attached to it. The Supreme Court found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two trade-marks, and that the famousness of the VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark is just one of the surrounding circumstances in determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists or not. Mattel, Inc. v Canada Inc. In the Mattel decision, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Mattel s appeal to prevent the registration of BARBIE'S & DESIGN trade-mark in association with restaurant services. Mattel had argued unsuccessfully before the Trade-marks Opposition Board, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal that its BARBIE trade-mark is famous in Canada and worldwide, instantly evoking the image of the brand in the minds of Canadian consumers. Mattel argued that the BARBIE trade-mark can no longer be used in Canada on most consumer wares and services without the average consumer being led to infer the existence of a business connection with Mattel. The Supreme Court agreed with the Opposition Board decision, as confirmed by other 1 [2006] SCC 22 2 [2006] SCC 23 3 As described by Justice Binnie.
2 appellate courts, that although some trade-marks may have the effect of transcending product and service lines, Mattel s BARBIE s fame is limited to the sale of dolls and doll accessories, at this stage, its fame is not enough to bootstrap a broad zone of exclusivity covering most consumer wares and services 4. A Question of Confusion In determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the two trade-marks, the Supreme Court analyzed all of the surrounding circumstances, including the inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks, the length of time the trade-marks were used, the nature of the wares, services or businesses, the nature of the trade, and the degree of resemblance between the two trade-marks. The Supreme Court stated that the fame of the BARBIE brand is a surrounding circumstance of importance, but is not a marketing trump card such that the other factors are thereby obliterated 5. Moreover, in some cases, some circumstances will carry greater weight than others, including the famous nature of Mattel s trade-mark. The Supreme Court found that there was no likelihood of confusion because of the great differences between the products and services of the two parties and the fact that the doll business and the restaurant business in this case appeal to a very different clientele. A Question of Evidence Mattel was unable to convince the Supreme Court since it failed to produce sufficient evidence to support its arguments. First, at the Opposition stage, although it is not legally required to do so, Mattel did not produce any evidence of instances of actual confusion between the two trade-marks, even though the marks had been co-existing in the marketplace for some time. When Mattel attempted to introduce survey evidence on appeal to the Federal Court, the Court found that Mattel s survey evidence had some blatant and determinative shortcomings that undermined its relevance considerably. The crux of the survey evidence was the following question: Do you believe that the company that makes Barbie dolls might have anything to do with this sign or logo? The Federal Court concluded that the survey evidence only served to show that the BARBIE trade-mark is famous, but could not be used to establish the existence of a likelihood of confusion. The Federal Court of Appeal weighed in as well stating that the survey evidence at best might establish a possibility of confusion, which is short of the threshold of a reasonable likelihood of confusion 6. One of the issues with the Supreme Court decision is that it loosely throws around the term famous, as if it had no meaning or consequence. The Supreme Court stated that 4 Mattel, Inc. v Canada Inc., [2006] SCC 22, at para Ibid, at para (2005), 329 N.R. 259, 2005 FCA 13, at para. 2.
3 the relevant point about famous marks is that fame is capable of carrying the mark across product lines where lesser marks would be circumscribed to their traditional wares or services 7. In Mattel s defense, if the lower courts actually considered that the BARBIE trade-mark is a famous mark, then perhaps because it is famous, it transcends dolls and doll accessories. If a trade-mark does not have the power to transcend its current association with particular wares and services, then it is simply well-known in its field of business, and not famous in the legal sense of the word. Furthermore, if famous marks are capable of carrying the trade-mark across product lines, then wouldn t Mattel s survey evidence on the fame of the BARBIE trade-mark be relevant to establish that BARBIE transcends product lines as well? The Supreme Court was never faced with this issue since Mattel failed to apply to the Supreme Court to adduce the survey testimony as fresh evidence. A Question of Evidence Again In opposition proceedings, the onus remains with the applicant of the applied-for trademark to establish the there is no likelihood that its trade-mark is confusing with other registered trade-marks. However, the courts may very well consider an absence of any actual confusion as a surrounding circumstance as to whether there is a likelihood of confusion or not. Therefore, it is always best, if possible, to prove that there is actual confusion in the marketplace. The Supreme Court took note that Mattel failed to produce this type of evidence, and an adverse inference was drawn from the lack of such evidence. The Pink Panther Mystery is Resolved! This case is also significant since it overruled a previous Federal Court of Appeal decision, which allegedly misinterpreted the definition of confusion set out in section 6 of the Trade-marks Act. 8 In Pink Panther, the Federal Court of Appeal limited the scope of protection available to a famous mark to cases where there is a connection or similarity between the wares or services associated with the famous mark and the wares or services of the newcomer. Mattel argued that, in the case of a famous mark like BARBIE, the words in s. 6(2) whether or not the wares or services are of the same general class takes on added significance, and the Pink Panther decision laid undue weight on the similarity or differences of the wares and services. Mattel used the VIRGIN trade-marks as an example of how famous brands diversify and transcend product lines, from records to airlines to insurance to superstores. 7 Supra note 4, at para Pink Panther Beauty Corp. v. United Artists Corp., [1998] 3 F.C. 534
4 The Supreme Court overruled the Federal Court of Appeal in Pink Panther; I believe Linden J.A. misspoke to the extent he suggested that, for confusion to occur, there must be some resemblance or linkage to the wares in question, i.e. to the wares for which registration of a trade-mark is sought. Resemblance is clearly not a requirement under s. 6. On the contrary, the point of the legislative addition of the words whether or not the wares or services are of the same general class conveyed Parliament s intent that not only need there be no resemblance to the specific wares or services, but the wares or services marketed by the opponent under its mark and the wares or services marketed by the applicant under its applied-for mark need not even be of the same general class. 9 While BARBIE ain t no VIRGIN, the Supreme Court opened the door for other famous trade-marks to assert that their trade-marks instantly evoke a brand image, and thus transcend product lines and services. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltee The Supreme Court also released the companion decision Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltee, dismissing Veuve Clicquot s trade-mark infringement action and depreciation of goodwill claim. Veuve Clicquot argued that that the famous VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark transcended the champagne industry, and as such, the respondents CLIQUOT trade-mark in association with mid-priced women s clothing was infringing the famous VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark. The Supreme Court reiterated its analysis in the BARBIE case, stating that fame is but only one factor which must be considered in the confusion analysis. It concluded that the famousness of the VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark is just one of the surrounding circumstances in determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists, and found that no confusion exists between the two marks. Finally, the Supreme Court held that there was no evidence that there had been a depreciation of the goodwill associated with the VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark. Unlike the BARBIE case, Justice Binnie appeared to have a greater appreciation of the famous nature of the VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark: within its wide circle of admirers, VEUVE CLICQUOT is undoubtedly famous and its trade-mark deserves wide protection not only from free-riders but from those who, without any intention of free-riding, nevertheless use in their own business distinguishing marks which create confusion or depreciate the value of the good will attaching to those of the Appellant Ibid, at para Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltée. [2006] SCC 23, at para. 2.
5 In fact, the Supreme Court then goes on to state that the evidence is clear that VEUVE CLIQUOT carries an aura of luxury which may extend outside the wine and champagne business. However, once again, the Supreme Court focused on the differences between the wares, and the fact that the evidence did not support the argument that the aura surrounding the VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark extended to mid-priced women s clothing. The Supreme Court went so far as to say that luxury champagne and midpriced women s wear are as different as chalk and cheese 11. A Question of Evidence Yet Again As in the Mattel decision, courts will always consider an absence of any instances of actual confusion as a surrounding circumstance as to whether there is a likelihood of confusion or not. The Supreme Court underlined that Veuve Clicquot did not present any evidence of actual confusion. While it is unnecessary to lead evidence of actual confusion, without it, proof of a likelihood of confusion and depreciation of goodwill is left to the expert witnesses. To its demise, Veuve Clicquot failed to produce any expert evidence that sufficiently suggested a likelihood of confusion between the two trade-marks. Similar to the Mattel decision, Veuve Clicquot s expert evidence demonstrated that the VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark only lends itself to an expansion beyond the champagne industry, and at best, only speculated on the possibility of confusion. Depreciation of Goodwill The Supreme Court also dismissed Veuve Clicquot's argument that, contrary to section 22 of the Trade-marks Act, the respondent s use of its trade-mark had depreciated the goodwill attached to the VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark. Under section 22 of the Act, there is no requirement to prove that the use of both trademarks would lead to confusion. Veuve Clicquot needed only to demonstrate that the respondent s use of a sufficiently similar trade-mark to the VEUVE CLICQUOT trademark evokes a mental association between the two marks in a relevant universe of consumers, which is likely to depreciate the value of the goodwill attached to the VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark. Under section 22 of the Act, Veuve Clicquot had the burden to establish that (1) the VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark or a confusing mark was used by the defendant in connection with wares or services; that VEUVE CLICQUOT (2) is sufficiently well known to have significant goodwill attached to it; (3) that VEUVE CLICQUOT was used by the defendant in a manner that is likely to have an effect on that goodwill attached to the VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark; and (4) that the likely effect would be to depreciate the value of its goodwill. On the first part of the test, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge when she concluded that 11 Ibid, at para. 31
6 although the use of a misspelled Cliquot would be sufficient for a casual observer to associate CLIQUOT with VEUVE CLICQUOT, a consumer who saw the word Cliquot used in the respondents stores would not make any link or connection to the VEUVE CLIQUOT trade-mark. Although the appellant was able to establish that considerable goodwill is attached to the VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark, which extends beyond wine and champagne, it did not provide any evidence that a consumer who saw the word Cliquot used in the respondents retail stores would make a mental link or connection to the champagne maker. If the somewhat-hurried consumer does not associate what is displayed in the respondents retail stores with the mark of the famous champagne maker, then there is no depreciation of goodwill attached to the VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-mark. It is not enough to simply establish that a trade-mark is famous, one must establish the boundaries of such fame. The Supreme Court used the example of the famous BUCKLEY S trade-mark to demonstrate that some famous marks, due to the nature of the products associated with the famous marks, do not extend well to certain expanded product lines and services. In the case of the BUCKLEY s trade-mark, its brand image is famous for horribly tasting cough syrup, but no trader would want to make such an association with restaurant services. Similarly, the aura of luxury associated with the VEUVE CLICQUOT trade-marks may extend to other luxury products, but no consumer would make the mental association between VEUVE CLICQUOT and mid-priced women s clothing. Future of Famous Marks The Supreme Court of Canada has left the door open for other owners of famous trademarks to assert the famous nature of their trade-marks. In a trade-mark infringement action, the plaintiff must prove a likelihood of confusion. Although the famous nature of the trade-mark is a surrounding circumstance of importance 12, proving famousness alone is at best proving a possibility of confusion, and not evidence of a likelihood of confusion. Moreover, a court will always consider all of the surrounding circumstances, including the differences between the wares and services associated with the trademarks in question, given the role and function of trade-marks, it will generally be an important consideration. 13 When protecting a famous trade-mark, it should be evident to all concerned that the mark is famous. Although evidence is necessary to establish that a trade-mark is famous, this should be the least of counsel s concerns. Under a depreciation of goodwill claim, one must establish the elusive mental association between the famous mark and the wares and services associated with the defendant s use of the mark in question. 12 Supra, note 4 at para Supra, note 4 at para. 71
7 Again, the evidence has to support a likelihood of depreciation, likelihood is a matter of evidence not speculation. 14 The Mattel and Veuve Clicquot decisions are good examples of the plaintiff s relying too much on the famousness of their trade-marks, at the expense of establishing confusion and depreciation. Fame, a relative, limited notion indeed. 14 Supra, note 10 at para. 60.
OVERVIEW OF TRADE-MARKS LITIGATION IN CANADA INFRINGEMENT, PASSING OFF AND DEPRECIATION OF GOODWILL
1 OVERVIEW OF TRADE-MARKS LITIGATION IN CANADA INFRINGEMENT, PASSING OFF AND DEPRECIATION OF GOODWILL Hugues G. Richard * LEGER ROBIC RICHARD, L.L.P. Lawyers, Patent and Trademark Agents Centre CDP Capital
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltée, 2006 SCC 23 [2006] S.C.J. No. 22 DATE: 20060602 DOCKET: 30398 BETWEEN: Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772
More informationVEUVE CLICQUOT PONSARDIN v. BOUTIQUES CLIQUOT LTÉE: THE PROTECTION OF FAMOUS TRADE-MARKS IN CANADA I. INTRODUCTION
VEUVE CLICQUOT PONSARDIN v. BOUTIQUES CLIQUOT LTÉE: THE PROTECTION OF FAMOUS TRADE-MARKS IN CANADA Jacques A. Léger, Q.C. and Barry Gamache * LEGER ROBIC RICHARD, L.L.P. Lawyers, Patent and Trademark Agents
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII. J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII August 8, 2011 J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT United States District Judge GENERAL FEDERAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES INDEX 1 DUTY OF JUDGE 2
More informationTRADEMARKS BY DESIGN: COMBINING DESIGN PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS TO PROTECT YOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Robert S. Katz Helen Hill Minsker
TRADEMARKS BY DESIGN: COMBINING DESIGN PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS TO PROTECT YOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Robert S. Katz Helen Hill Minsker Design patents and trademarks are separate species of intellectual
More informationUnderstanding How Termination and Severance Pay will be Offset Against Disability Benefits**
August 2013 Labour & Employment Law Section Understanding How Termination and Severance Pay will be Offset Against Disability Benefits** Hugh R. Scher and Caroline Schulz The relationship between disability
More informationHunt Biggs LLP is a multi-discipline practice existing under the laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada and the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Hunt Biggs LLP provides a full range of Intellectual Property Services. Our goal is to deliver personalized high quality Intellectual Property services in a direct, approachable and cost effective way.
More informationThe World Intellectual Property Organization Domain Name Disputes: The Case of ARMANI.COM
The World Intellectual Property Organization Domain Name Disputes: The Case of ARMANI.COM by Robert Lesperance LESPERANCE MENDES Lawyers 410 900 Howe Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2M4 604-685-3567 (tel) 604-685-7505
More informationCASE COMMENT. by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research
CASE COMMENT by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research On June 29, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada released Clements v. Clements, [2012] 7 W.W.R. 217, 2012 SCC 32, its latest in a series of judgements
More informationArguments and Dialogues
ONE Arguments and Dialogues The three goals of critical argumentation are to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments. The term argument is used in a special sense, referring to the giving of reasons
More informationCHARITY LAW BULLETIN NO. 364
CHARITY LAW BULLETIN NO. 364 APRIL 29, 2015 EDITOR: TERRANCE S. CARTER EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL AND ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE DAMAGES By Barry W. Kwasniewski * A. INTRODUCTION Bray v Canadian College
More informationPreparing Trademark Search Opinions
Preparing Trademark Search Opinions Jonathan M. Gelchinsky Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway Suite 700 Cambridge, MA 02142 617.452.1642 jon.gelchinsky@finnegan.com Preparing
More informationWoodruff L. Carroll, for appellant. Mark L. Dunn, for respondents. Plaintiff Marguerite James commenced this medical
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL CONFIRMS ABSENCE OF INFRINGEMENT IN WOOD CONSERVATOR CASE
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL CONFIRMS ABSENCE OF INFRINGEMENT IN WOOD CONSERVATOR CASE BARRY GAMACHE * LAWYERS, PATENT & TRADEMARK AGENTS A recent decision by Canada s Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed
More informationIS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT RLS/LG OF THE T.T.A.B. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
9/25/01 THIS DISPOSITION Paper No. 12 IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT RLS/LG OF THE T.T.A.B. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Sonnet Technologies, Inc. Serial
More informationFactors to Consider When Handling a Long Term Disability Benefits Case. Several issues may arise in the course of a lawsuit for long term disability
Factors to Consider When Handling a Long Term Disability Benefits Case Several issues may arise in the course of a lawsuit for long term disability benefits. This paper provides strategic suggestions on
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRIMINAL ACTION H-00-0000 DEFENDANT(S) JURY INSTRUCTIONS I. General A. Introduction Members of the Jury:
More informationTrademark Issues for the Wine Industry, Part I
Part I At NEAL & MCDEVITT, we help those in the wine industry understand intellectual property law with our world class expertise and an appreciation of our clients concerns. We have prepared a series
More informationBLACK KOI REGISTRATION PREVAILS OVER KOI TRADE-MARK IN CANADA
BLACK KOI REGISTRATION PREVAILS OVER KOI TRADE-MARK IN CANADA STELLA SYRIANOS * LAWYERS, PATENT & TRADEMARK AGENTS In a recent decision by the Canadian Trade-marks Opposition Board, the impact of the important
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 03-CV-1445. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-3748-02)
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationHow To Decide A Case In The Uk
1 THE COURT: You have been selected and sworn to determine the facts and render a verdict in the case of the Commonwealth / 1 of Pennsylvania versus Robert Greene, who is charged with one count of robbery,
More informationThe trademark lawyer as brand manager
The trademark lawyer as brand manager This text first appeared in the IAM magazine supplement Brands in the Boardroom 2005 May 2005 For further information please visit www.iam-magazine.com Feature The
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. Appellant ) Respondent ) ) HEARD: May 1, 2008
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CR-000982 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN George Spartinos, for the Appellant Appellant - and - JEREMY CLIFFORD ATKINSON Frank Miller, for the
More informationCitation: W. W. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2015 SSTAD 924 W. W. and. Canada Employment Insurance Commission. and
Citation: W. W. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2015 SSTAD 924 Date: July 27, 2015 File number: AD-14-272 APPEAL DIVISION Between: W. W. Appellant and Canada Employment Insurance Commission
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Toor v. Harding, 2013 BCSC 1202 Amrit Toor and Intech Engineering Ltd. Date: 20130705 Docket: S125365 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs Thomas
More informationOFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) DECISION of the First Board of Appeal of 8 July 2010
OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS) The Boards of Appeal DECISION of the First Board of Appeal of 8 July 2010 In Case R 366/2010-1 CONTESSA PREMIUM FOODS, INC. 222
More informationBorderless World of Internet Marketing Brings New Complexity to Trademark Clearance
Borderless World of Internet Marketing Brings New Complexity to Trademark Clearance by Glenn A. Gundersen February 2001 Copyright 2001 Dechert. All rights reserved. Materials have been abridged from laws,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 5 December 2002 (1)
1/6 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 5 December 2002 (1) (Community trade
More informationCase 1:04-cv-01512-RBK-AMD Document 540 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:04-cv-01512-RBK-AMD Document 540 Filed 08/21/2007 Page 1 of 7 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE HONORABLE ROBERT
More informationLSUC Continuing Legal Education Program of February 28, 2008
LSUC Continuing Legal Education Program of February 28, 2008 Euro-Excellence Inc. v. Kraft Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 37 ( Supreme Court of Canada, July 26, 2007 ) Howard P. Knopf 1 Macera & Jarzyna, LLP Ottawa,
More informationJURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS. Federal Crown Proceedings. (Remarks by Hon. B. L. Strayer) The Future/Solutions
JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS Federal Crown Proceedings (Remarks by Hon. B. L. Strayer) The Future/Solutions A. Tort (extracontractual civil liability) and Contract Actions by and against the Crown The
More information2014 Year In Review. - Social Scientific Evidence - Courtesy of
2014 Year In Review - Social Scientific Evidence - Courtesy of Phone: 416-413-7600 Web: www.corbinpartners.com Email: info@corbinpartners.com 2014 Year in Review: Social Scientific Evidence Compiled by
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ROY MATTHEW SOVINE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0094
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationMailed: 22 June 2006 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In re Liberty Bankers Life Insurance Company
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Mailed: 22 June 2006 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Liberty Bankers Life Insurance Company Serial
More informationActual Confusion: The Best Evidence of Likely Confusion? Michael T. Olsen Shareholder Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. (612) 604-6718 molsen@winthrop.
Actual Confusion: The Best Evidence of Likely Confusion? Michael T. Olsen Shareholder Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. (612) 604-6718 molsen@winthrop.com March 4, 2010 Actual Confusion It is generally accepted
More informationSpecial Civil Mandatory Attorney s Fees
STATE OF NEW JERSEY NEW JERSEY LAW REVISION COMMISSION Tentative Report Relating to Special Civil Mandatory Attorney s Fees April 20, 2012 This tentative report is distributed to advise interested persons
More informationCANADIAN INTERNET REGISTRATION AUTHORITY DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY
CANADIAN INTERNET REGISTRATION AUTHORITY DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY Dispute Number: DCA-1123-CIRA Domain name: extremefitness.ca Complainant: Extreme Fitness, Inc. Registrant: Gautam Relan Registrar:
More information****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
More informationFederation of Law Societies of Canada. Ottawa, November 26, 2013
Submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce in Respect of Bill C-4 (a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO BROOKE B. DEMAREE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee, APPEAL NO. C-090892 TRIAL NO. A-0906987
More informationNEGOTIATION AND SETTLEMENT TECHNIQUES DURING TRIAL. It is trite, but none the less true, that success at anything during trial is highly
NEGOTIATION AND SETTLEMENT TECHNIQUES DURING TRIAL It is trite, but none the less true, that success at anything during trial is highly dependent on preparation. In the first place, it is preparation that
More informationOPINION Richard B. Klein DATE: June 14, 2001. Plaintiff, Patricia Daniels, filed this lawsuit on behalf of
PATRICIA DANIELS, p/n/g of : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY RODERICK STERLING, a minor : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : TRIAL DIVISION v. : June Term, 1996 : HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA : NO. 2450 COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC :
More informationNo. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SECOND DIVISION May 31, 2011 No. 1-10-0602 Notice: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under
More informationMSPB HEARING GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS. Introduction... 1. Pre-Hearing Preparation... 2. Preparation of Witness... 4. Preparation of Documents...
MSPB HEARING GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction........................................................ 1 Pre-Hearing Preparation............................................... 2 Preparation of Witness................................................
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 7 May 2009 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 7 May 2009 (*) (Appeal Community trade mark Figurative mark WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark WATERFORD Refusal to register
More informationTrademark Infringement and Likelihood of Confusion
Trademark Infringement and Likelihood of Confusion Michael G. Atkins Graham & Dunn, PC April 27, 2007 Copyright 2007. All rights reserved 1 Road map Trademark basics Why confusion matters Forms of confusion
More informationECTA. European Communities Trade Mark Association
ECTA European Communities Trade Mark Association 27 th Annual Meeting in Killarney How to Protect A Trademark In Korea Jay Young-June Yang I am very pleased to have this opportunity to present this session
More informationJURY INSTRUCTIONS. 2.4 Willful Maintenance of Monopoly Power
JURY INSTRUCTIONS PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS 1. ANTITRUST CLAIMS 2. Elements of Monopoly Claim 2.1 Definition of Monopoly Power 2.2 Relevant Market 2.3 Existence of Monopoly Power 2.4 Willful Maintenance
More informationThe Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance
PRODUCT LIABILITY Product Liability Litigation The Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance By Kenneth Ross Product liability litigation and product safety regulatory activities in the U.S. and elsewhere
More informationThe Truth About CPLR Article 16
The DelliCarpini Law Firm Melville Law Center 877.917.9560 225 Old Country Road fax 631.923.1079 Melville, NY 11747 www.dellicarpinilaw.com John M. DelliCarpini Christopher J. DelliCarpini (admitted in
More informationGoogle Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] HCA 1: Misleading and Deceptive Representations
153 Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] HCA 1: Misleading and Deceptive Representations GRAHAM HANSEN* Digital technologies have created new problems for the law. In recent
More informationDECISION OF THE THIRD-PARTY DECIDER
BELGIAN CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION DECISION OF THE THIRD-PARTY DECIDER Vanguard Trademark Holdings / Domain Solutions Corp. Case n 44309 : alamocar.be, alamocarrental.be, alamocarrentals.be,
More informationThe Burden of Proof. Trier May 2013 Declan O Dempsey dod@cloisters.com
The Burden of Proof Trier May 2013 Declan O Dempsey dod@cloisters.com What is it? Common Law country- judge = neutral; parties display evidence before the judge. They are responsible for the points they
More informationTHIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Mailed: Oct. 3, 2003 Paper No. 12 Bottorff UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Consulting Services
More informationTRADE-MARK PROTECTION
Lawyers, Patent & Trade-mark Agents 150 York Street, Suite 800 Toronto ON M5H 3S5 Tel: 416.364.1553 Fax: 416.364.1453 TRADE-MARK PROTECTION David Kornhauser dkornhauser@msmlaw.ca Direct Phone: 416.862.6280
More informationINTRODUCTION. (ii) (iii) (iv)
1 INTRODUCTION The protection of famous marks was instigated by the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement and is implemented through Article 6bis of the Paris Convention and Article 16 of the TRIPS
More informationTrials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Date: March 8, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Date: March 8, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner v. PROXYCONN, INC. Patent
More informationMemorandum. Trial Counsel in Medical Malpractice Cases. John E. Wetsel, Jr., Judge. From: Date: December 11, 2012. Sample Instructions.
Memorandum To: From: Trial Counsel in Medical Malpractice Cases John E. Wetsel, Jr., Judge Date: December 11, 2012 Subject: Sample Instructions ============================== Here is a complete set of
More informationGENERAL CIVIL JURY CHARGES IN GENERAL NEGLIGENCE CASES. Although you, as jurors, are the sole judges of the facts, you are duty-bound to follow
GENERAL CIVIL JURY CHARGES IN GENERAL NEGLIGENCE CASES General Introduction Ladies and Gentlemen, now that you have heard the evidence and the argument of the attorneys, it is now time for me to instruct
More informationBroad specifications and use requirements: competition and bad faith considerations
Broad specifications and use requirements: competition and bad faith considerations Professor Spyros Maniatis Director, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London Consultant, Edwards
More informationU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB MARCH 31,99 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Paper No. 31 Simms/md ADT Services, Inc. substituted
More informationThe Road to E-Discovery: More Garden Path, Less Mountain Climb?
The Road to E-Discovery: More Garden Path, Less Mountain Climb? By Daniela Bassan January 2016 1 Any discussion of e-discovery in Canada including how to make the process more efficient and user-friendly
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT MARVIN HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D13-4741 [May 27, 2015] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO ELAINE WILLIAMS and GEORGE W. REYNOLDS, vs. Plaintiffs-Appellants, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee,
More informationCase 06-01220 Doc 40 Filed 04/15/08 Entered 04/15/08 15:36:45 Main Document Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE : CASE NO. 06-10179 OCA, INC., et al. SECTION B DEBTORS CHAPTER 11 Jointly Administered OCA, INC. AND OCA OUTSOURCE, INC.
More informationBLENHEIM ATTORNEYS AT AMSTERDAM
WESTERDOKSDIJK 40, 1013 AE AMSTERDAM POSTBOX 10302, 1001 EH AMSTERDAM TELEPHONE: + 31 (0) 20 5210 100 FACSIMILE: + 31 (0) 20 5210 101 http://www.blenheim.nl :mail@blenheim.nl The information provided by
More information2013 IL App (4th) 111079WC-U. No. 4-11-1079WC IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION
2013 IL App (4th 111079WC-U No. 4-11-1079WC Workers' Compensation Commission Division Filed: May 20, 2013 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any
More informationWorld Book. Protection of IP Canada. www.plg.eu.com 1. TRADE-MARKS 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 REGISTERED TRADE-MARKS
World Book 1. TRADE-MARKS 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Act relating to trade-marks and unfair competition (commonly known as the Trade-marks Act) governs trade-mark matters in and, as a federal law, receives application
More informationCLIENT MEMORANDUM. I. The Basics. June 18, 2013
CLIENT MEMORANDUM FTC v. Actavis: Supreme Court Rejects Bright Line Tests for Reverse Payment Settlements; Complex Questions Remain in Structuring Pharmaceutical Patent Infringement Settlements June 18,
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-13-00125-CV CHRISTOPHER EDOMWANDE APPELLANT V. JULIO GAZA & SANDRA F. GAZA APPELLEES ---------- FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY
More informationHowHow to Find the Best Online Stock Market
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2007 CA 0424 EVELYN SCHILLING LAWRENCE CONLEA Y RONALD CONLEAY NELDA CARROL AND BETTY VERRET t 01 VERSUS GRACE HEALTH
More information2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
More informationThe Importance of Clearing Trademarks
The Importance of Clearing Trademarks Start-ups and established companies alike often fail to adequately search trademarks prior to exerting significant energy and using substantial resources to prepare
More informationTHE AHOUSAHT, EHATTESAHT, HESQUIAHT, MOWACHAHT/MUCHALAHT, AND TLA-O-QUI-AHT INDIAN BANDS AND NATIONS. And MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Date: 20150227 Docket: T-70-15 Citation: 2015 FC 253 Vancouver, British Columbia, February 27, 2015 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Manson BETWEEN: THE AHOUSAHT, EHATTESAHT, HESQUIAHT, MOWACHAHT/MUCHALAHT,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:09-cv-00013-DWF-RLE Document 94 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Tri-Marketing, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Civil No. 09-13 (DWF/RLE) Plaintiff and
More informationSexual offences prevention orders after R. v. Smith
Sexual offences prevention orders after R. v. Smith Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPO s) were introduced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ss104-113 and have recently been extensively reviewed by the
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s London v. The Burlington Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 141408 Appellate Court Caption CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S LONDON,
More informationGROUP DISABILITY INSURANCE
GROUP DISABILITY INSURANCE I have been asked to speak to you today on the topic of group disability insurance. Note that there is a distinction between disability insurance and accident and sickness insurance.
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED COPY. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIF~ L THIRDAPPELLATEDISTRICT.r l E D. (Nevada) SEP 2 7 2013
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by
More informationORLANDO DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Defendants. Counterclaim Defendants MEMORANDUM DECISION
HI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and HOOTERS OF AMERICA, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Plaintiffs, ORLANDO DIVISION -vs- Case No. 6:03-cv-116-Orl-22JGG WINGHOUSE OF FLORIDA, INC.;
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408 JAMES K. MEADOR V. APPELLANT T O T A L C O M P L I A N C E CONSULTANTS, INC., AND BILL MEDLEY APPELLEES Opinion Delivered January 31, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY
More informationQihoo v. Tencent: economic analysis of the first Chinese Supreme Court decision under Anti-Monopoly Law
February 2015 Qihoo v. Tencent: economic analysis of the first Chinese Supreme Court decision under Anti-Monopoly Law The October 16, 2014 Chinese Supreme People s Court (SPC) decision on Qihoo 360 v.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2006-1309 (Serial No. 75/530,795) IN RE REED ELSEVIER PROPERTIES INC. J. Paul Williamson, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for
More informationCase 2:14-cv-01934-MBN Document 91 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NUMBER: 14-1934
Case 2:14-cv-01934-MBN Document 91 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GREG EDWARDS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 14-1934 ROWAN COMPANIES, INC. SECTION:
More informationThe author. This article
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2014, Vol. 9, No. 3 ARTICLE 225 Repeated filings of a European Community trade mark Karin Stumpf* The issue Registered trade marks must be used within five
More information8:08-cv-00541-LSC-TDT Doc # 301 Filed: 04/01/10 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 2724 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
8:08-cv-00541-LSC-TDT Doc # 301 Filed: 04/01/10 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 2724 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA PETER KIEWIT SONS INC. and KIEWIT CORPORATION, ATSER, LP,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellee No. 861 WDA 2015
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 C.M.W. Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. M.J.S. Appellee No. 861 WDA 2015 Appeal from the Order Entered May 1, 2015 In the Court
More informationTORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER. Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and Plaintiff's Treating Physicians
This article originally appeared in The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 1996. by Jeffrey R. Pilkington TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and
More informationTHIS DISPOSITION OF THE T.T.A.B. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In re Zarak Systems Corporation
THIS DISPOSITION 12/19/01 IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT Paper No. 8 OF THE T.T.A.B. BAC UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Zarak Systems Corporation Serial No.
More informationUse of Competitor's Trademark in Keyword Advertising: Infringement or Not?
Use of Competitor's Trademark in Keyword Advertising: Infringement or Not? Grady M. Garrison and Laura P. Merritt Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz P.C. Michael M. Lafeber Briggs and Morgan,
More informationOPENING INSTRUCTIONS
OPENING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Jury: Respective Roles of Jurors and Judge You ve been chosen as jurors for this case, and you ve taken an oath to decide the facts fairly. As we begin the trial, I
More information2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U. No. 1-12-0898
2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U FOURTH DIVISION March 28, 2013 No. 1-12-0898 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 557 U. S. (2009) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN RE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS No. 08 1443. Decided August 17, 2009 JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 13-14238. D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cv-01228-HGD
Case: 13-14238 Date Filed: 05/30/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-14238 D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cv-01228-HGD MARK A. DOWDY, versus SUZUKI
More informationOFFER BY WPP GROUP PLC ("WPP")
THE TAKEOVER PANEL 2001/15 OFFER BY WPP GROUP PLC ("WPP") FOR TEMPUS GROUP PLC ("TEMPUS") 1. The Takeover Panel met on 31 October to hear an appeal by WPP against the Panel Executive's refusal to allow
More informationIN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE CANADIAN INTERNET REGISTRATION AUTHORITY ("CIRA") DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY (THE "POLICY")
IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE CANADIAN INTERNET REGISTRATION AUTHORITY ("CIRA") DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY (THE "POLICY") Complainant: Complainant Counsel: Registrant: Disputed
More informationThe discovery principle and limitation of actions for solicitor s negligence: Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe Barristers and Solicitors (Ont. C.
February 2013 Civil Litigation Section The discovery principle and limitation of actions for solicitor s negligence: Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe Barristers and Solicitors (Ont. C.A) Antonin Pribetic*
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Docket No. 107472. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. KEY CARTAGE, INC., et al. Appellees. Opinion filed October 29, 2009. JUSTICE BURKE delivered
More informationTHIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB. Mailed: January 3, 2005 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Mailed: January 3, 2005 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Snelling and Snelling, Inc. Serial No.
More informationTEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PART V - RULES OF PRACTICE IN JUSTICE COURTS Adopted by the Supreme Court of Texas Justice Court, Pct 1 1 of 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. GENERAL... 6 RULE 523. DISTRICT
More information