Search for: "Matter of Smith v Park"
Results 241 - 260
of 373
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 May 2010, 11:57 am
And when it’s former-associate v. firm, that’s all the more interesting. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 7:47 am
” The relevant regulations focus on communications services, and in Est. of Smith v. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 4:46 am
Sidemans and Company Nigeria Limited v Calag Capital Limited (Afro-IP) Poland Personal circumstances in trade mark registration (Class 46) South Africa FIFA v Metcash trade mark case - Owen Dean's response (Afro-IP) South Africa 1 - Ambush Marketers 0: legal framework to help FIFA and 2010 World Cup sponsors protect their rights (Managing IP) Switzerland New developments in Swiss patent law (IP Frontline) Federal Administrative Court finds PARK AVENUE not descriptive… [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 4:46 am
Sidemans and Company Nigeria Limited v Calag Capital Limited (Afro-IP) Poland Personal circumstances in trade mark registration (Class 46) South Africa FIFA v Metcash trade mark case - Owen Dean's response (Afro-IP) South Africa 1 - Ambush Marketers 0: legal framework to help FIFA and 2010 World Cup sponsors protect their rights (Managing IP) Switzerland New developments in Swiss patent law (IP Frontline) Federal Administrative Court finds PARK AVENUE not descriptive… [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 5:46 am
Sidemans and Company Nigeria Limited v Calag Capital Limited (Afro-IP) Poland Personal circumstances in trade mark registration (Class 46) South Africa FIFA v Metcash trade mark case – Owen Dean’s response (Afro-IP) South Africa 1 – Ambush Marketers 0: legal framework to help FIFA and 2010 World Cup sponsors protect their rights (Managing IP) Switzerland New developments in Swiss patent law (IP Frontline) Federal… [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 4:29 am
See Larkin v. [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 10:05 am
Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. [read post]
2 May 2020, 3:23 pm
Smith (1990). [read post]
7 May 2020, 10:25 am
State v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 10:58 am
State v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 1:15 pm
” (A bit of background – in Grundberg the Utah Supreme Court concluded as a matter of law that Restatement (2d) §402A, comment k applied “across the board” and barred assertion of any and all strict liability, design defect claims). [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 5:36 pm
Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2005 BCSC 92, and followed by Madam Justice Smith in Deol v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 11:20 am
See Jessica Smith’s post on that topic here. [read post]
8 May 2012, 4:54 pm
See, e.g., Smith v. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 9:07 am
In 2000 Mance L.J. said in Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland: “Copyright does not lie on the same continuum as, nor is it the antithesis of, freedom of expression. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 1:28 pm
Displayed on a post in Ten Percent’s parking lot was a 3-foot by 2-foot three-dimensional metal sign shaped like a revolver, hung approximately 9 feet off the ground. [read post]
20 Dec 2009, 9:34 am
Smith v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 6:24 am
Sergeant Adam Holland of the Fort Smith Police Department and Michael Parks of the Fayetteville Police Department conducted forensic examinations of DF and Bobo's computer and located the emails in question. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 11:24 pm
(Class 46) District Court of The Hague: Legal costs: Vetus v Inno Nautic (EPLAW) District Court of The Hague awards claim for ‘rest damage’: ABK Kunststoffen v Snoeks Automotive B.V (EPLAW) New Zealand NZ High Court clears patent attorneys of negligence: The Baby Hammock Co Limited v AJ Park Law (Patentology) Northern Ireland Ploughing a lonely furrow? [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 11:24 pm
(Class 46) District Court of The Hague: Legal costs: Vetus v Inno Nautic (EPLAW) District Court of The Hague awards claim for ‘rest damage’: ABK Kunststoffen v Snoeks Automotive B.V (EPLAW) New Zealand NZ High Court clears patent attorneys of negligence: The Baby Hammock Co Limited v AJ Park Law (Patentology) Northern Ireland Ploughing a lonely furrow? [read post]
