Search for: "State v. Jeremy D."
Results 261 - 280
of 430
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jun 2009, 3:00 am
(Spicy IP) Design v copyright: need for a clear and rational distinction: Microfibres v Giridhar & Co & Ors (Spicy IP) Madras High Court: jurisdiction - can design infringement case can be filed in Court where plaintiff resides? [read post]
29 Mar 2021, 6:30 pm
(Morgan.2011.AIAAmbiguities) Joshua D. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 6:07 am
Forcing her to abandon her Christian principles and issue licenses could never be undone, her attorney, Jonathan D. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 7:12 am
Frye, The Peculiar Story of United States v. [read post]
8 Nov 2019, 11:32 am
And neither Secretary "place[d] any significant weight" on Attorney General Sessions' statement that DACA was unconstitutional, FCC v. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 9:23 am
HACKER AND PAUL PIERSON New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2011, c2010 HN89.S6 H33 2011 See Catalog Carbon offsetting -- Law and legislation CARBON TRADING LAW AND PRACTICE / SCOTT D. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 11:49 am
HACKER AND PAUL PIERSON New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2011, c2010 HN89.S6 H33 2011 See Catalog Carbon offsetting -- Law and legislation CARBON TRADING LAW AND PRACTICE / SCOTT D. [read post]
5 Jan 2008, 2:12 pm
So… to calm things down, I am able to state that there are no known ‘unusual antics’ being reported by Martin George and colleagues at Conflict of Laws.net, by Jeremy Philips and colleagues at IPKat (Intellectual property) or Alex and his colleagues over at IMPACT; an excellent law rich blog by leading Midlands firm, Freeth Cartwright. [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 4:08 am
– open letter to Lord Mandelson urging removal of clause 17 from Digital Economy Bill (1709 Copyright Blog) United States US General US Department of Justice: Microsoft documentation ‘substantially complete’ (Ars Technica) US Patents – Decisions CAFC finds specific case where claims need not be construed before determining validity: Perfect Web Techs, Inv v InfoUSA, Inc (GRAY on Claims) District Court E D Texas: Apple loses… [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 9:01 am
Ohio State University v. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 10:45 pm
TTABlog WYHA: Would You Have Appealed This 2(d) Refusal? [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 5:24 am
(IP Think Tank) New force in Europe – EPLAW Patent Blog (IP Think Tank) IP references left out of last-minute, weak global climate deal in Copenhagen (IP Watch) UN Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen – IP discussion (IPKat) (Spicy IP) (IP Watch) (IP Watch) (WIPO) Implementing the Development Agenda nationally: WIPO seminar (Jeremy de Beer) WIPO traditional knowledge meeting stalls, but begins to breach trust gap (IP Watch) Poverty in the developing world: Should TRIPs really… [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 for… [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 for… [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]
30 Oct 2012, 7:44 am
Not a grant but, statistically speaking, the next best thing: the Court CVSG’d in the once-relisted Mount Holly v. [read post]
9 May 2011, 12:31 am
Shenkman, and Charles D. [read post]
18 Oct 2014, 6:54 am
Matteoni, Matteoni O’Laughlin & Hechtman, San Jose, California, Edward V. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 10:32 am
The statutory language in Section 106 (a)(d)(2) refers to title to tangible property, i.e., the installed mural or sculpture. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 3:00 am
The State filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the ITCA has no extraterritorial applicability. [read post]
