Search for: "Gillett v. Gillett" Results 281 - 300 of 369
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Sep 2012, 9:46 am
Co. v Gillette Co., 64 NY2d 304, 311 [1984] [citations omitted]). [read post]
10 Jun 2016, 5:42 am by Marty Lederman
 The vote (which I should have included in my original post) was 4-3 to grant, with Justice Harlan voting to hold (presumably for the Court's decision in Gillette), and Justice Marshall recused. [read post]
11 Oct 2015, 2:37 pm
In Case C-228/03 Gillette Co v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy, the CJEU stated that use that does not create an impression of commercial connection or take unfair advantage of the earlier mark’s distinctive character or repute will be considered honest practice. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 9:25 am
") and Po-Jen Yap (""Honestly, neither Celine nor Gillette is defensible", a little bit of heresy for those who think the European Court of Justice knows more about honest business practices than trade mark owners do). [read post]
3 Jun 2023, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  But the language of the opinions was often much loftier, as when the Court said, in Wolff v. [read post]
10 Mar 2017, 6:50 am by Brian Cordery
The name for the declaration derives from Arrow Generics v Merk [2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), in which such a declaration was first sought and in which it was held that it was at least arguable that they could be granted. [read post]
21 Apr 2017, 4:59 am by John Elwood
Michigan Department of Treasury, 16-688, Gillette Commercial Operations North America & Subsidiaries v. [read post]
22 Dec 2007, 7:48 am
Programs for Children with Special Health Care Needs Children's Special Health Program Wyoming Department of Health 4020 House Avenue Cheyenne, WY 82002 Phone: (307) 777-7941 Web: http://wdh.state.wy.us/mch/cshhome.htm State CHIP Program (health care for low-income uninsured children) Kid Care CHIP Wyoming Department of Health Children's Insurance Programs 2424 Pioneer Avenue, Suite 100 Cheyenne, WY 82002 Phone: (888) 996-8786 (Toll Free) E-mail: kidcare@state.wy.us Web:… [read post]
27 May 2013, 4:18 am by Barry Sookman
The first is Unilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Ltd [1989] RPC 583, 609, where Mustill LJ said that, in order to show that a defendant was secondarily liable for infringement of a patent, “there [was no] need for a common design to infringe”, as it was “enough if the parties combine to secure the doing of acts which in the event prove to be infringements”. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 2:22 am by Léon Dijkman
In light of the Gillette principle, it would not be justified to grant the patent holder protection against products that are not novel or inventive over the prior art (an issue that was also touched upon by Arnold LJ in FibroGen v. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 10:00 pm
Davis * Sandra Coyle * Torrence Allen * Virginia Kee Sponsors: Alethea Gordon * Alex Beckford * Atta "Ghana" Acheanpong - Brice Peyre * Candy Vasquez * Carlos Manzano * Charles Imohiosen * Denise Gillette * Greg Lambert * Jeremy Creelan * Joan Paylo * Justin G. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 12:37 pm by Meg Martin
Summary of Decision issued August 4, 2010Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.Case Name: Rice v. [read post]