Search for: "Does 1-104"
Results 181 - 200
of 1,709
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Nov 2015, 2:00 pm
Ontario (Attorney General), 2001 SCC 15, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 470, at para. 77, and Attorney-General v. [read post]
30 Aug 2009, 11:49 pm
Rather, for each issue, defendant mechanically incorporates by reference Undisputed Material Facts Nos. 1 through 104 as if fully set forth herein. [read post]
4 Jul 2007, 9:36 am
Such cases can be resolved by way of a non qualified assignment, which some refer to as a "non qualified structured settlement" or "tax deferred structured settlement". ** intrinsic components of the tax exclusion on damages per IRC 104(a)(1) and 104(a)(2) [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 4:30 pm
Structured settlement payments where the periodic payments represent damages excludable under IRC 104(a)(1) or 104(a)(2) are similarly excludable from gross income. the present value of remaining guaranteed lump sum or certain payments may however, be included in the annuitant's estate if he or she dies. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 11:09 am
§ 29-39-104 that went into effect for all actions that accrue on or after October 1, 2011. [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 6:40 am
Cir. 1990); Saddlesprings, Inc., 104 USPQ2d at 1950.To overcome the presumption of abandonment, the party must submit evidence of either (1) use of the mark during the statutory period, or (2) activities reflecting an intent to resume (or begin) use during that period. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 1:52 pm
Rep. 104-369, at 35 (1995). [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 1:17 pm
Does it matter that USDA/FSIS has yet to declare Salmonella a per se adulterant? [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 3:24 pm
[5.1] It is true that, as submitted by the [patent proprietor], the EPC does not contain an explicit definition of the term “request”. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
Both the opponent and the patent proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to maintain the patent in amended form.The Board decided to maintain the patent as amended during the appeal proceedings and then dealt with cost-related requests under A 104 and – which is less common – Article 16 RPBA.*** Translation of the French original ***Concerning the apportionment of costs ordered by the OD[18] Pursuant to A 104(1) each… [read post]
26 Apr 2022, 12:48 pm
Culhane, 33 N.Y.2d 90, 104, n. 2, 350 N.Y.S.2d 381, 394, 305 N.E.2d 469, 478). [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 6:21 am
P. 6(b)(1)(B). [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 2:33 am
This was not a motion or compel that would be subject to the requirements of Trademark Rule 2.120(f)(1).Text Copyright John L. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 8:46 am
(b) Is the repair clause set out in Article 14 of Directive 98/71 and Article 110 of Regulation ... 6/2002 to be interpreted as constituting a subjective right for third-party producers of replacement parts and accessories and, if so, does that subjective right include the right for such third parties to use the trade mark registered by another party in respect of replacement parts and accessories, by way of derogation from the rules laid down in Regulation ... 207/2009 and Directive ...… [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 12:32 pm
It therefore decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘1(a) Must Article 5(1) and Article 8(1) of [the long-repealed and re-enacted Directive 89/104 on the approximation of trade mark law: we now have Directive 2008/95] be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right conferred by the registered mark can definitively no longer be asserted by its proprietor against a… [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 2:59 am
The operator of an online marketplace does not ‘use’ – for the purposes of Article 5 of Directive 89/104 or Article 9 of Regulation No 40/94 – signs identical with or similar to trade marks which appear in offers for sale displayed on its site. 6. [read post]
30 May 2018, 5:55 am
References [ + ] 1. [read post]
5 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
According to R 108(1) the EBA shall reject the petition as inadmissible if the petition does not comply with A 112a, paragraph 1, 2 or 4, R 106 or R 107, paragraph 1(b) or 2. [2.1] The mandatory requirement set up in the above-cited provisions that the petition shall be reasoned is not a formality. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 7:00 am
New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), the property owner’s loss is balanced against the government’s purpose for the regulation. [read post]
24 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
Inventive step[5] The decision under appeal starts from D1 and makes reference to passages on pages 1, 4 and 9. [5.1] On page 1, D1 introduces the problem of protecting ownership of digital data on the Internet. [read post]
