Search for: "Champagne v. Champagne"
Results 201 - 220
of 305
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2011, 10:59 am
But everyone should keep the corks in the champagne. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 2:53 pm
The responsibility of the state to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense was articulated in the 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 11:20 am
In Champagne v. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 9:10 am
Today it was the turn of spirits, with Joined Cases C-4/10 and C-27/10 Bureau national interprofessionel du Cognac v Gust. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 2:26 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 2:22 am
” A Panel can do this under Rule 12, that is request statements from the complainant as the Panel did, for example, in Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne v. [read post]
3 Jul 2011, 3:03 am
The Panel in Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne v. [read post]
4 Jun 2011, 7:55 pm
By Zak GriefenTibbetts v. [read post]
30 May 2011, 4:55 am
Tewari De-Ox Systems Inc. v. [read post]
9 May 2011, 4:28 am
Wares and Services Manual expands (Canadian Trademark Blog) Trade-marks: Use it as registered: Bigras v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 1:17 pm
Answer: Probably not, according to Hubbs v. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 9:33 am
United Air Lines (1999) and Williams v. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 4:00 am
The latest installment is Republic of Ecuador v. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 3:50 am
The quality of the Champagne will be entirely dependent on how well, in my absolute discretion, sales of the book are going". [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 9:21 pm
One would have thought that, given the enormity of its founder’s litigation woes, the company famed for topless shots of inebriated coeds would have shied away from the battle, but some silver-tongued litigator-type convinced them that they had to go all the way for the good of the brand.More recently, the Kiwis sought revenge for the decades-old prohibition on use of the word “champagne” to describe any sparkling wine of non-Gallic origin, and got back a bit of their own… [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:52 am
This was approved by Sullivan CJ in the Irish Supreme Court in Sinclair v Gogarty [1937] IR 377 (see also Gallagher v Tuohy (1924) 58 ILTR 134 (Murnaghan J); Connolly v Radio Telifís Eireann [1991] 2 IR 446 (Carroll J); Reynolds v Malocco [1999] 2 IR 203, [1999] 1 ILRM 289, [1998] IEHC 175 (11 December 1998) (Kelly J)); and it represents the law in Australia (Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46 (28 September 2006)),… [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 9:01 am
” See Womble v. [read post]
23 Jan 2011, 11:47 am
From allies sipping champagne to celebrate one another’s joining the Court, Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, and Jackson had formed camps and become bitter enemies. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 5:02 am
In Enlow v. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 1:55 pm
“What do you call an Aussie with a bottle of champagne at The Ashes? [read post]
