Search for: "Leisure v. Leisure"
Results 261 - 280
of 672
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2015, 9:12 pm
The answer to the question whether a group boycott is a per se antitrust violation has meandered through a number of US Supreme Court cases, which you can read at your leisure: Fashion Originators’ Guild of American v. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 8:47 am
See Witkoff v. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 5:01 am
[1] Arnold v Britton & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 902 (22 July 2013), para 45 [2] Ibid, para 50 [3] Ibid, para 57 [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 1:00 am
On Monday 26 January 2015 the Court will hear the appeal of Arnold v Britton & Ors regarding the true interpretation of 5 versions of a clause which has been described as a service charge clause in the long lease agreement of 25 chalets in the respondent’s leisure park. [read post]
31 Dec 2014, 9:25 am
See Perry v. [read post]
27 Dec 2014, 2:19 am
More from Europe: In Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box the CJEU said that circumventing a protection system may not be unlawful. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 9:59 pm
DDR eventually settled with all defendants except for National Leisure Group, Inc. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 11:31 am
” Gage v. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 11:31 am
” Gage v. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 11:31 am
” Gage v. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 11:31 am
” Gage v. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 11:17 am
Jenkins v. [read post]
19 Nov 2014, 4:15 am
The linked cases of C-403/08 Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others and C-429/08 Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd where the CJEU held that copyright owners must authorise any communication to the public and such authorisation was required where a person makes the protected work "accessible to a new public", and then finally the TVCatchup case C‑607/11 ITV v… [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 5:00 am
The case that deals with what the custodial parent has to show the court to be able to move from New Jersey with the children is Baures v. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 5:00 am
The case that deals with what the custodial parent has to show the court to be able to move from New Jersey with the children is Baures v. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 6:22 am
In its controversial ruling in Case C-530/12, OHIM v National Lottery Commission [extensively reported by the IPKat here],the focus was on the probative value of national law: does it need to be considered by OHIM and by the General Court as a matter of fact or as a matter of law? [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 12:01 pm
And, if you are defending off-label promotion claims, we recommend a less leisurely stroll – there is a lot of good stuff in these cases. [read post]
4 Oct 2014, 7:13 am
Platform I Shore, LLC v. [read post]
4 Oct 2014, 7:13 am
Platform I Shore, LLC v. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 2:05 pm
In today’s case (Bains v. [read post]
