Search for: "US v. London"
Results 241 - 260
of 3,698
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Dec 2020, 6:02 am
The first and third questionsIn terms of assessing ‘genuine use’, the CJEU first noted that, according to Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (C–40/01), the fact that a mark is not used for goods newly available on the market but rather for goods that were sold in the past does not mean that its use is not genuine. [read post]
25 Sep 2024, 2:06 pm
Supreme Court eminent domain decision, Kelo v. [read post]
28 Apr 2019, 7:45 am
In contrast in Takeda v Kowa KK (I.P. [read post]
17 May 2012, 4:36 am
Brown (US) and Club Resorts Ltd. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 7:10 am
The post Claridge’s Hotel Limited v Claridge Candles Limited & Denise Shepherd [2019] EWHC 2003 (IPEC) appeared first on Brown Rudnick. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 4:30 am
Housing officers, with only appellate case-law to flesh out the meaning of difficult and bald statutory tests, deserve some sympathy: statutory guidance or secondary legislation would undoubtedly have been useful in this area. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 9:17 pm
Supreme Court “wrongfully” decided Kelo v. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 1:43 am
* Arnold J's latest judgment flags down the iconic (but not distinctive) London black cabMr Justice Arnold addresses the issue of whether the iconic London cab can be a trade mark in The London Taxi Corporation Limited trading as the London Taxi Company v (1) Frazer-Nash Research Limited and (2) Ecotive Limited [2016] EWHC 52 (Ch). [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 4:01 pm
Penney “‘Zeran v. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 7:27 am
 The dissent in Harrison v. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 3:05 am
Copyright Law and Freedom of SpeechWednesday 8 February 2017, 18:00 - 19:30, followed by a receptionUCL Darwin Building, Malet Place, London WC1E 6BTCopyright law often thought to be designed to embody an appropriate balance between the need to allow copyright owners control over uses of copyright works (thereby providing an incentive for creativity) and the need to preserve some access to those works for socially valuable uses. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
The case of the day is Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. v. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
The case of the day is Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. v. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
The case of the day is Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2017, 10:44 am
A recent Court of Appeal decision has swung the pendulum back a bit in favour of rights holders.BMW v Technosport London Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 779 is an appeal from the IP Enterprise Court, England and Wales' specialist IP court which handles relatively simple or low value claims.What had Technosport been doing? [read post]
21 Nov 2021, 7:07 am
She can’t use a map and would get lost in London. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 6:53 am
On 22 June 2011, the Supreme Court heard appeals on the joined cases of Edwards V Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 571 and Botham v Ministry of Defence [2010] EWHC 646 (QB). [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 7:54 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 2:52 pm
In Bakoss v. [read post]
10 Oct 2009, 2:14 am
R (A) v Leicester City Council and the London Borough of Hillingdon [2009] EWHC 2351 (Admin) (only on Lawtel) is an attempt to answer the “interesting question” posed by the Court of Appeal in R (Liverpool CC) v LB Hillingdon and AK (interested party) [2009] EWCA Civ 1702 (noted by us here), namely, whether more than one local social services authority can owe a duty under s.20, Children Act 1989, to the same child at the same time. [read post]
