Search for: "Does 1 through XX"
Results 1 - 20
of 176
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jan 2017, 8:48 am
AEI Capital Corporation often raises money for investments through Reg D private placement offerings like the company did for AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XX. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 8:40 am
Does it cover FET and expropriation? [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 11:14 am
AEI Capital Corporation often raises money for investments through Reg D private placement offerings like the company did for AEI Net Lease Income & Growth Fund XX LP. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 5:33 pm
Accession to international organizations or treaties is normally done through a legal instrument that does not contain substantive obligations. [read post]
21 May 2012, 10:03 am
So, this is my (incomplete) understanding of the proposal: 1. [read post]
12 Aug 2014, 4:13 pm
The main issue on appeal: the availability of GATT XX exceptions to paragraph 11.3 of China’s Accession Protocol (AP), which contains China’s WTO-plus commitment to eliminate export duties and does not refer to GATT XX exceptions. [read post]
2 Jun 2013, 1:53 am
All the classes’ alphabetical lists contain goods/services which are not within their class heading wordings, so add scope (although may also narrow in other ways), resulting in widespread concern among practitioners and IPOs that this new practice is in conflict with the court’s answers 1 and 2, and may (and probably does) involve broadening . [read post]
9 Feb 2011, 7:46 am
" But, relying on certain aspects of the jurisprudence, he thinks it can be done in a way that does not violate Article I:1: it would be easy for a WTO Panel to find a tariff conditioned on a non-product related PPM to be inconsistent with the GATT, but this does not mean that it must. [read post]
25 Dec 2012, 8:51 am
(In order to understand fully how the analysis produces its results, I highly recommend that those who have the time run through this interactive simulation of the process of gel electrophoresis in the lab.) [read post]
13 Nov 2006, 1:02 am
The report of Senator Lautenberg mentioned by Simon Lester in a recent post, does not say a word about two important legal points in the context of this issue (See "OPEC, the WTO, Regionalism, and Unilateralism", Journal of World Trade, Vol. 37 (2003), by Melaku Desta). 1. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 6:33 am
It's interesting to note that there is a general exception in CETA that incorporates GATT Article XX (page 463): Article X.02: General Exceptions 1. [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 5:32 am
The Brazilian healthcare legislation establishes in the legal definitions of generic drugs (article 3, items XX and XXI, Statute #6,360 of 1976[1]) that their labels must have all and the same therapeutic indications of the reference-listed drug. [read post]
31 Oct 2006, 11:18 am
Even if Sitglitz does not attempt to distinguish legally the various strategies that he suggests, such is not his purpose, it is however easy to recognize them through the text of his article. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 6:01 am
The document date is August 1, 2014. [read post]
9 Mar 2024, 9:05 am
Specifically, Mexico invoked Articles XX(a) and XX(g): 1. [read post]
9 Mar 2024, 9:05 am
Specifically, Mexico invoked Articles XX(a) and XX(g): 1. [read post]
15 Nov 2020, 5:08 am
I don't have a sense at this point of how much liberalization is involved in this agreement, but skimming through the various chapters, I found a number of tidbits worth noting. 1. [read post]
12 Aug 2014, 2:32 am
The CJEU effectively killed as correct law the OHIM-espoused equivalence of the class XX heading wording and “All goods in class XX”. [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 2:06 pm
Under this structure, then, a Member: 1) may take a measure that is necessary to protect public morals, for example, but only if 2) that measure does not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate or constitute a disguised restriction on trade. [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 2:06 pm
Under this structure, then, a Member: 1) may take a measure that is necessary to protect public morals, for example, but only if 2) that measure does not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate or constitute a disguised restriction on trade. [read post]
