Apple's dispute over the iPad trademark deepened Monday after the Chinese company that claims ownership of the name said it won a court ruling against sales of the popular tablet computer in China.

Xie Xianghui, a lawyer for Shenzhen Proview Technology, said the Intermediate People's Court in Huizhou, a city in southern China's Guangdong province, had ruled on Friday that distributors should stop selling iPads in China.

The ruling, which was also reported widely in China's state media, may not have a far-reaching effect. In its battle with Apple, Proview is utilizing lawsuits in several places and also requesting commercial authorities in 40 cities to block iPad sales.

Apple Inc. said in a statement Monday that its case is still pending in mainland China. The company has appealed to Guangdong's High Court against an earlier ruling in Proview's favor.

Apple insists it holds the trademark rights to the iPad in China.

Eight months after Utah's immigration enforcement law was put on hold by a federal judge, attorneys on both sides will have an opportunity on Friday to argue the constitutionality of the measure.

The law created by House Bill 497 would have allowed police to check the citizenship of anybody they arrest. It was initially blocked last May by U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups, 14 hours after it went into effect. At the time, Waddoups pointed at similarities to a contentious Arizona law that is bound for the U.S. Supreme Court and said there was sufficient evidence that at least some parts of the Utah law would be found unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union and National Immigration Law Center sued a week before the law went into effect to stop the implementation of House Bill 497, saying it could lead to racial profiling. The U.S. Justice Department joined the lawsuit in November, claiming the measure usurped federal authority.

Lawyers for the Utah attorney general's office have maintained the law is constitutional because it doesn't allow police to check the citizenship of everyone they encounter. They argue lawmakers worked to avoid the constitutional pitfalls of the Arizona law and passed a significantly different bill.

A European Union court ruled Thursday that social networking sites cannot be compelled to install general filters to prevent the illegal trading of music and other copyrighted material.

The decision is a victory for operators of social networking sites in the EU, but a setback for those who seek to protect copyrighted material from being distributed without payment or permission.

It also comes as protests are growing in Europe against ACTA, the proposed international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which is meant to protect intellectual property rights.

In Thursday's decision, the EU Court of Justice, which is based in Luxembourg, ruled that requiring general filters that would cover all the site's users would not sufficiently protect personal data or the freedom to receive and impart information.

SABAM, a Belgian company that represents authors, composers and music publishers, filed the lawsuit leading to Thursday's ruling. In it, the company objected to the practices of Netlog NV, a social networking site, saying users' profiles allowed protected works to be shared illegally.

Michael Gardner, head of the intellectual property practice at London law firm Wedlake Bell, called the ruling a further blow to copyright owners because it appears to rule out forcing operators of social network sites and Internet service providers — at their own expense — to impose blanket monitoring and filtering aimed at stopping infringements.

A class action is a case brought against an entity whose actions have damaged a group of people in a similar way.  A class proponent who has been injured may bring a class action on behalf of everyone who was harmed, with class members joining later on.

Class action lawsuits help to achieve justice not just for the individuals who bring such claims, but also for those who have suffered similar losses caused by a defendant's wrongdoing.  Class actions are an important and valuable part of the legal system, providing for the fair and efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties by allowing the claims to be brought together into a single case against the defendant that allegedly caused the harm.

Closer: The Salazar Law firm knows and understand class action cases. Class actions claims are long and exhausting but their attorneys are proficient and professional and will support and guide their clients every step of the difficult process. Their experience over the years have given them extensive knowledge on class action matters. Their goal is to built strong lawsuits designed to get compensation for clients impacted by wrongdoings of businesses. Contact Salazar Law Firm for your free case evaluation and visit http://www.hurtinhouston.com for more information.

The top U.S. Catholic bishop vowed legislative and court challenges Tuesday to a compromise by President Barack Obama to his healthcare mandate that now exempts religiously affiliated institutions from paying directly for birth control for their workers, instead making insurance companies responsible.

Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in an interview with The Associated Press that he trusted Obama wasn't anti-religious and intended to make good on his pledge to work with religious groups to fine-tune the mandate.

"I want to take him at his word," Dolan said in Rome, where he will be made a cardinal Saturday. But he stressed: "I do have to say it's getting harder and harder," to believe Obama's claim to prioritize religious freedom issues given the latest controversy.

Obama sought to quell fierce election-year outrage on Friday by abandoning his stand that religiously affiliated institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities must pay for birth control. Instead, he said insurance would step in to provide the coverage.

The administration's initial position had outraged evangelicals and Catholic bishops and emboldened many Republicans who charged that it amounted to an assault on religion by forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception, sterilization and the morning-after pill against their consciences.

The Shuman Law Firm today announced that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Molycorp, Inc. between March 9, 2011 and November 10, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll free at (866) 974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com.

The complaint alleges that Molycorp and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts during the Class Period: (a) Molycorp's development and expansion of the Mountain Pass mine was not progressing on schedule and would not allow the company to reach rare earth oxide production rates at the end of calendar 2012 and 2013; and (b) end users had been reducing demand for the company's products as prices for rare earth elements increased.

On November 10, 2011, the Company reported disappointing third quarter 2011 revenues and earnings results below analysts' estimates and announced a reduction in Mountain Pass production guidance for the fourth quarter of 2011 due to expected equipment downtime relating to Mountain Pass engineering and expansion issues. The Company's stock price fell from $38.70 per share on November 10, 2011 to $33.45 per share on November 11, 2011, or approximately 13.6%.

If you purchased Molycorp common stock during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class no later than April 3, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in investor rights litigation.