Search for: "Neves v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 46
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Dec 2023, 10:30 pm by Sara Notario
First, the Court is competent to review restrictive measures adopted under Article 29 TEU, within the meaning of the CJEU case law (i.e., measures of individual scope of application; see Ben Ali v Council, para. 145) in the annulment procedure (Article 263(4) TFEU). [read post]
4 Jul 2022, 5:24 pm by Jacob Katz Cogan
Gómez, Gilberto Guerrero-Rocca, Nicolás Vassallo, María Gabriela De Abreu Negrón, Karen Longaric, & Fabián Villeda Corona, Revisión de laudos arbitrales de inversión 2020: 2º Encuentro Anual (Santiago de Chile, 07-08/06/2021) Lucas Carlos Lima, As medidas cautelares da Corte Internacional de Justiça no caso Ucrânia e Federação Russa Eshan Dauhoo, The Challenges faced by Women Legal Academics (Panel Discussion) … [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 9:43 am by Eugene Volokh
That criticism will inevitably be upsetting to those who support or identify with those states. [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 9:19 am
They are permitted in the UK (but we do not see them often), and in other EU Member States, such as Sweden, where this case originated, as well as elsewhere (such as in the US). [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 12:24 pm by Peter Groves
It must do so on the basis of factors such as the details about the geographical areas where the products were to be delivered.AMS Neve Ltd and others v Heritage Audio SL and others (Case C-172/18) EU:C:2019:674 [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 6:17 am
The contested patents involve a compound patent owned by Gilead and a second medical use patent owned by the government of the United States. [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 4:15 am by James Nurton
The judgment in Case C172/18 AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree v Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas addresses questions concerning jurisdiction, in... [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 4:15 am by James Nurton
The judgment in Case C172/18 AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree v Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas addresses questions concerning jurisdiction, in particular in cases involving Internet sales. [read post]
15 Jul 2019, 4:29 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” (Estate of Neve/son v Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, 230 AD2d 399, 400 [I st Dept 2002).) [read post]
15 Jul 2019, 4:29 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” (Estate of Neve/son v Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, 230 AD2d 399, 400 [I st Dept 2002).) [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 6:09 am
Brazil-The Tribunal de Justiça do Rio de Janeiro has finally ruled in the case of BMW v EEA and Com. de Veículos Ltda (here), a process that began in 2012, when BMW sued two Chinese distributors under the Brazilian unfair competition law for commercializing the Lifan 320 model vehicle. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 11:44 pm
Retromark Volume V: the last six months in trade marks1. [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 3:59 am
FIL Ltd v Fidelis Underwriting [2018] EWHC 1097, High Court of England and Wales (May 2018)The use of FIDELIS for specialty insurance and reinsurance services does not infringe FIDELITY for financial services, holds Mr Justice Arnold. [read post]
8 May 2018, 6:37 am
An important case on jurisdiction and online infringementAMS Neve v Heritage Audio [2018] EWCA Civ 86 (Court of Appeal) (February 2018)I covered the IPEC’s decision on this in Volume I. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 3:15 am
The effect of the CJEU's decision was that claimants can potentially obtain pan-EU relief against multiple connected defendants located in different Member States, provided that there is an 'anchor' defendant sued in its Member State of domicile.The complexities of the jurisdiction issues raised in Nintendo have been further highlighted in a recent reference by the Court of Appeal to the CJEU in AMS Neve Ltd & Ors v Heritage Audio S.L. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 4:57 am
[Merpel wonders whether this decision was in part driven by a general desire to reduce the number of cases coming before an arguably overburdened IPEC].AMS Neve v Heritage Audio [2016] EWHC 2563 (IPEC), HHJ Hacon (Jurisdiction) In this case, HHJ Hacon held that the UK Court has no jurisdiction in respect of an act of infringement relating to EUTMs where the act in question involves the appearance of offending signs on a Defendant’s website, even where the website is… [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 7:35 am
NVidia v Hardware Labs [2016] EWHC 3135(December 2016)This was the exam question posed here. [read post]