Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Hickox sustained several significant injuries throughout his career, notably while serving as a home plate umpire. On May 14, 2005, Hickox suffered an "inner ear injury including concussion and several broken [facial] bones" while wearing a Wilson-manufactured "sample" mask that Hickox alleged was defective, filing a lawsuit against the manufacturer for failing to inform Hickox that his ...
Sports kit manufacturers Manufacturer Country Founded Founder(s) Key people Products Headquarters Total assets Website Adidas: Germany: 18 August 1949
MACOM and GigOptix Announce Final Settlement of All Pending Suits Between Them LOWELL, Mass. & SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. ...
The company was founded in 1980 by Richard Gering and Art Juedes. With about $7,000 worth of running shoes, they set up shoe clinics near their hometown of Wausau, Wisconsin. At each stop they sold their shoes and provided price lists. [1] In 1983, they developed a catalog for track and field and baseball shoes. In 1988, phone operators were ...
SAN DIEGO (AP) — U.S. Sailing has settled its federal lawsuit against veteran sailor and executive Paul Cayard and the America One Racing foundation, the sport's governing body announced on ...
The company was founded in 1970 by Robert Hirt McClure (1893–1991) of Princeton, New Jersey (the origin of the company's name) as a manufacturer of tennis-ball machines, and soon after, rackets. Howard Head , founder of the Head sporting goods company, took tennis lessons following his retirement and used a Prince tennis ball machine, but was ...
The company was started by James Douglas "Doug" Easton (1907–1972), who had made bows and arrows since 1922, and who in 1932 opened Easton's Archery Shop in Los Angeles. After the creation of the manufacturing company in 1953, Easton grew to become the world's leading archery business and pioneered the use of aluminum in sporting goods.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. [1]