Search for: "He v. Holder" Results 2441 - 2460 of 5,732
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Sep 2007, 8:00 pm
Rokita) and Baze v. [read post]
2 May 2017, 3:29 am
The judgement will no doubt be music to the ears of the rights holders. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 11:58 am
Actually, he noted that the idea of extending copyright protection to the Sherlock Holmes and Watson characters because of those final 10 stories might be dangerous from a policy perspective. [read post]
10 Sep 2014, 11:48 am
He considered whether Defendant’s use was transformative, defined earlier this year by the Second Circuit in Authors Guild, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 3:33 pm
I would add that I consider the present case to be indistinguishable from 20C Fox v Newzbin [here] in this respect. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 11:18 am by CMLP Staff
Ga. 2008) (noting that “a parodist must use at least some of the mark he criticizes” and that use of a strong mark makes a parody more recognizable); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2009, 11:32 am
You can read the decision in Fisher v Brooker [2009] UKHL 41, in full and hot off the internet here and here.The Lord Law Lords (including one Legal Lady: Baroness Hale, who does remember the 1960s) have ruled that Fisher, who claimed he wrote the haunting pseudo-Bach organ melody which opened the song, is entitled to a share of future royalties. [read post]
26 Nov 2017, 5:00 am by W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
 The right front pocket contained a metal cigarette holder that held a small baggie of methamphetamine inside. [read post]
26 Nov 2017, 5:00 am by Law Office of W.F. "Casey" Ebsary Jr
 The right front pocket contained a metal cigarette holder that held a small baggie of methamphetamine inside. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 5:38 am by Susan Brenner
He testified that the `Simone Danielle’ profile contained photographs and other entries identifying Judway as the holder of that account. [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 6:09 pm
" According to the Court, jurisdiction was permitted because (1) the plaintiff could not reasonably argue that litigating in Maryland is burdensome when he enrolled the foreign judgments, (2) Maryland has an interest in adjudicating a matter involving a Maryland policy holder, (3) no other identifiable forum exists for the insurance company, (4) states have an interest in adjudicating claims in a single action, and (5) the only social policies involved in the action concerned… [read post]