Search for: "State v. Jeremy D."
Results 241 - 260
of 430
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Apr 2014, 8:50 am
United States, 13-7120 (ditto); Zivotofsky v. [read post]
14 Apr 2014, 5:38 am
Jeremy D. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 9:36 am
Franck, Using Investor–State Mediation Rules to Promote Conflict Management: An Introductory GuideSusan D. [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 2:48 pm
If we’d like to have regular jewelry and Tiffany jewelry, then barring tarnishment makes sense (if a bunch of Tiffany strip clubs would otherwise come into existence). [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 1:42 pm
§ 2254(d)(2) merely because the state court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 6:21 am
In United States v. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 9:53 am
But if the differences are great enough, you’d think they might show through even with bad methods. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 12:11 am
Department of Justice has stated that the criminal division has started a far-reaching probe, and that they are “responding aggressively and taking it very seriously. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 6:43 am
They’re also obviously at risk of simply describing, in a laudatory manner, characteristics of the goods or services in question.CJEU Cases C-398/08 P Audi AG v OHIM (VORSPRUNG DURCH TECHNIK) and C-311/11 P Smart Technologies ULC v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH), already blogged by Jeremy hereand here, set out the position in Europe. [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 8:35 am
§ 2254(d)(2) merely because the state court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing. [read post]
1 Dec 2013, 10:22 pm
- Bernard Maister, Caspar van Woensel• Sport as a brand and its legal protection in South Africa - Owen Dean• Notes and updates• Comment on the Green Paper for post-school education and training - Shihaam Shaikh• Confusion and the bounds of trade mark monopolies: Foschini v Coetzee - Jeremy Speres• The panados and panadon’ts of trade mark registrations: recent developments regarding trademarks used in the pharmaceutical industry - Marius Roetz•… [read post]
1 Dec 2013, 1:59 am
In People v. [read post]
TV and radio transmissions in spa establishments are communications to the public, says AG Sharpston
28 Nov 2013, 12:18 am
So, katpat to the one and only IPKat Jeremy for telling everything about Case C-351/12 Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním, o.s. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 12:04 pm
§ 2254(d)(2) merely because the state court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 6:31 am
§ 2254(d)(2) merely because the state court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 9:53 am
§ 2254(d)(2) merely because the state court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing. [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 6:44 pm
Sam D’Aquilla said in an interview Tuesday. [read post]
30 Sep 2013, 3:28 am
But I suspect the two, separating partners in Beauchamp v. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 8:01 am
Our blogmeister Jeremy has been reminding us how difficult it is to find news stories during the long summer month of August. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 1:41 pm
If the subject matter were an uncopyrightable object, we’d still recognize the photo itself as copyrightable, so it seems that the photo’s copyrightability must be independent of the subject matter. [read post]
