Search for: "In re C. B-W"
Results 241 - 260
of 1,731
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Feb 2024, 10:23 am
Hidden in ordinary case b/c the use complained of is the D’s use to create the D’s work. [read post]
20 May 2016, 12:25 pm
Kennedy: not problematic b/c it does no harm other than exist. [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 1:21 pm
Less problem w/identifying a claimant to the mark, usually, b/c of public use requirement. [read post]
23 May 2007, 8:16 am
b. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 7:53 am
A: It should be wrong, but it’s probably not b/c Congress did tinker w/§117 in response. [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 12:36 pm
And how often is that b/c of copying? [read post]
25 Feb 2023, 12:23 pm
They walk around confused about sponsorship b/c of their priors! [read post]
7 Apr 2023, 1:18 pm
DSA: they’re designer, adjudicator, rights protector, systemic risk avoider—much more detailed, rule-oriented role if they choose DSA path. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 4:58 am
For that reason LM v Medway Council (2007) EWCA Civ 9, (2007) 1 FLR 1698, R v B CC Ex p P (1991) 1 WLR 221 CA (Civ Div), P (A Minor) (Witness Summons), Re (1997) 2 FLR 447 CA (Civ Div) and W (Children) (Care Order: Sexual Abuse), Re (2009) EWCA Civ 644, (2009) 2 Cr App R 23 should be overruled. [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 7:22 am
Copyright and real estate are different b/c of building and borrowing as key feature of creativity. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 12:51 pm
Less productive even than confusion b/c of diversity of interpretations. [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 9:10 am
9thCir.: functionality b/c of psychological and health benefits (claimed). [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 8:08 am
© has a clear enforcement asymmetry b/c rights owners have a clear mechanism of enforcing rights, but there’s no mechanism for public rights. [read post]
20 Nov 2010, 9:19 am
We're dropping the state charge, which was that they violated the contract w/YouTube . . . this way their threat of [h]itting me with a SLAPP suit ('pay our lawyers') is dust . . . b/c the SLAPP statute is a state thing, not a federal. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 2:51 am
Für eine solche Einschränkung fehlt nämlich ebenfalls eine gesetzliche Grundlage, selbst bei Geltung von VAM 16a, und sie wäre unverhältnismässig. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 11:42 am
Even understanding the facts Barnett offers, judges might disagree w/the baseline. [read post]
12 May 2011, 6:19 am
Robert; Barquet, Roy; Callen, Scott; Richburg, Scott D.; Crane, Stephen A.; Szabo, Stephen J.; Vazquez, Steven W.; Edwards, Ted B.; Little, Thomas M.; Maida, Thomas; Maurer, Thomas; Munro II, Thomas; Little, Walter C.; Davis, William E.; Guthrie, William C. [read post]
4 Jun 2019, 10:16 am
That logic gives rise to speaker rights, b/c we want state to be responsive to people who are talking. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 8:47 am
Try new forms: B corporation (public interest as one goal) is a result of firms realizing there’s more to this than the bottom line.Example of finding herself in the book: in the lawyer, in the author, but also in the firm: w/a colleague, wrote an IP book but couldn’t stomach the traditional distribution model, so created a pay-what-you-want model w/a suggested price. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:03 am
But it’s not there b/c of property rights. [read post]
