Search for: "Ferrari v. Ferrari" Results 181 - 200 of 215
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jul 2009, 7:34 am by Clerquette LeClerq
If we have viability at 21 weeks, he says, shouldn't that help further erode the framework of Roe v. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 1:00 am
: L’Oréal v Bellure (IPKat) Is the ruling in L’Oréal v Bellure against the law? [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 7:18 am
Moments ago, the United States Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the government's view on whether the Court should grant certiorari in American Home Products v. [read post]
30 May 2009, 12:29 pm
Ferrari Issue: Does the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempt a design defect state-law claim against a vaccine manufacturer? [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 7:00 pm
(Patent Prospector) US-Korea adopt patent prosecution highway (Law360) (Patent Docs) (Managing Intellectual Property)    Global Global - General Obama, patent reform, patent litigation in the USA and Europe – IP Think Tank podcast 26 January 2009 (IP Think Tank) Intangible values collapse – the old 70% to 80% claim is now officially dead and buried (IAM) (IP Asset Maximizer Blog) Managing value in a shrinking economy: the IP audit (IP Frontline) Downturn… [read post]
13 Jan 2009, 6:45 am
Stanford student David Muraskin previews the first case to be heard this morning, Montejo v. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 6:34 pm
  Detroit had started to make the big cars more efficient, but the quality, never  very good, went down even further  as Detroit’s semi-skilled workforce and antiquated manufacturing plants struggeled to adapt to new technologies–the variable displacement Cadillac V-8s  and GM diesel V-8s were partcularly awful. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 1:36 pm
’ paper by Graeme Clark SC (IP Down Under) Full Federal Court decision concerning brand reputation in context of ‘lookalike’ products and famous brands: Hansen Beverage Company v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd (Mallesons Stephen Jaques) Federal Court holds that grace period applicable to a ‘parent patent’ is different to that of its divisional ‘child’: Mont Adventure Equipment v Phoenix Leisure Group (IP Down… [read post]
24 Oct 2008, 4:34 am
By way of example, there is already OHIM case law relating to designs used on toy cars as opposed to real cars (Supermarked A/S v Ferrari SPA, ICD 842, 13 November 2006), as well as a decision of the Court of Appeal of England & Wales relating to a design that can function as both a laundry aid, and a massage device (Green Lane Products Ltd v PMS International Group Plc & Ors [2008] EWCA 358). [read post]