Search for: "Does 1-29" Results 2181 - 2200 of 12,789
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Oct 2017, 3:43 am by Andrew Frisch
On appeal, the defendant-employer raised three arguments: (1) that time spent logged off under its flexible break policy categorically does not constitute work; (2) that the District Court erred in finding that WHD’s interpretive regulation on breaks less than twenty minutes long, 29 C.F.R § 785.18, is entitled to substantial deference; and (3) that the District Court erred in adopting the bright-line rule embodied in 29 C.F.R. [read post]
10 Dec 2016, 5:02 am by Florian Mueller
" (paragraph 57)"Since one of the cumulative criteria necessary for establishing a ‘communication to the public’ under Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 is not met, the question of the copyright holder not authorising the placement of his work on other websites operated by third parties (36) is, in my view, immaterial. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 6:10 am
’[Zahorik] spoke with Donoho on December 29 and followed up with another letter that same day. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 3:03 am by Lynn Jokela
For example, a calendar year-end company would be required to comply with the new mining property disclosure rules when filing an Exchange Act registration statement or a Securities Act registration statement that does not incorporate by reference disclosure from a registrant’s Exchange Act annual report on or after January 1, 2021, while a registrant with a June 30th fiscal year-end would be required to comply with the new mining property disclosure rules when filing an… [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 7:09 am
Well, at least Archie thinks so“This is the case”, continued the Court, “where the work is no longer available to the public on the site on which it was initially communicated or where it is henceforth available on that site only to a restricted public, while being accessible on another Internet site without the copyright holders’ authorisation” [this looks like a confirmation that one cannot link to works made available without the rightholder's consent].The CJEU… [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 2:19 pm by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
Further, each party shall disclose in the certification the names of any non-party who should be joined in the action pursuant to R. 4:28 or who is subject to joinder pursuant to R. 4:29-1(b) because of potential liability to any party on the basis of the same transactional facts. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 11:02 am by Rebecca Tushnet
” Arguments applicable to all Lanham Act claims: (1) Does the Lanham Act protect all uses of Spence’s name? [read post]