Search for: "MATTER OF C B J B" Results 2541 - 2560 of 3,062
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 May 2008, 8:03 am
, (IPRoo), WIPO Director General candidates’ presentations to members: (Intellectual Property Watch), IP rights arise in UN debate on the right to participate in cultural life: (Intellectual Property Watch), IP academies agree to galvanise efforts to promote IP education: (WIPO), What business people do to maximise protection of IP: (Ezine @rticles), Lorin Brennan’s memo on interaction between UNICITRAL guide and IP rights: (IP finance), Kent’s… [read post]
29 Nov 2014, 3:53 am by Legal Beagle
id=a5cdb7a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION[2014] CSOH 169 CA73/13OPINION OF LORD DOHERTY In the cause (FIRST) A LIMITED (SECOND) B LIMITED (THIRD) C LIMITED (FOURTH) D LIMITED (FIFTH) E LIMITED Pursuers;against F Defender:Pursuers:  Sandison QC, Watt;  Shepherd & WedderburnDefender:  Party Litigant27 November 2014Introduction[1]        The defender was employed by the fifth pursuer between 1 September… [read post]
7 Jun 2020, 1:17 am by Schachtman
Accepting the “tainted” evidence generated by the unlicensed practice of medicine would contravene public policy.[12] Although the challenged physician had committed a criminal offense under Washington law, Judge Armstrong did not refer the matter to the King County prosecutor. [read post]
27 Mar 2022, 10:36 am by Annsley Merelle Ward
Although there are 7 representations, the main features can be seen in 3 drawings: The unregistered designs relied upon are:  (a) the whole of the Heeled Regina boot (essentially the same as the RCD); and (b) the Heeled Regina boot with the back panel/gusset area excluded; and (c) the Heeled Regina boot with the back panel and part of the inner side of the boot excluded:Fairfox & Favor relied on seven features of the unregistered design of the Heeled Regina as follows:the… [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 2:59 pm
(b) Safe Harbors, Impersonation and Infringement. [read post]
11 Nov 2008, 11:28 pm
The government will has four possile responses: (a) an argument that the NZCA was just wrong or can be distinguished; (b) a technical argument that the NZCA decision was kinda sorta ultra vires, according to the NZSC; (c) an argument that US and UK judgments on quite different schemes, or Australian HCA dicta on Chapter 3, should be preferred to the NZCA decision; or (d) retrospectivity, schmetrospecitivity! [read post]
3 Sep 2021, 5:01 am by Peter Margulies
The Supreme Court on Aug. 24 declined to stay an injunction by Judge Matthew J. [read post]
2 Jun 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
That’s because, as you know, all of this is highly fact dependent and there’ll always be situations where some charges and remedies are necessary no matter the level of cooperation. [read post]