Search for: "Williams v. London" Results 281 - 300 of 618
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jan 2012, 2:44 am
According to the House of Lords decision in Designer Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2416, Judge Birss had to decide: (a) whether there had been copying; (b) if yes to (a), which features had been copied; and (c) if yes to (a), whether the copying in (b) represents a substantial part of the original work. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 2:41 pm by Giles Peaker
” The Court of Appeal referred to Prudential Assurance Co. ltd. v London Residuary Body & ors. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 11:40 am by Lorelie S. Masters
  Prior to joining Hunton & Williams, Paul was a policy researcher at a think tank based at the London School of Economics, where he helped to develop a network of policymakers, academics, and lobby groups collaborating in areas involving consumer protection and digital rights. 1See English Arbitration Act 1996, Section 52(4).2Id. at Section 57.3Id. at Section 70.4See A v. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 11:40 am by Lorelie S. Masters and Paul T. Moura
  Prior to joining Hunton & Williams, Paul was a policy researcher at a think tank based at the London School of Economics, where he helped to develop a network of policymakers, academics, and lobby groups collaborating in areas involving consumer protection and digital rights. 1See English Arbitration Act 1996, Section 52(4).2Id. at Section 57.3Id. at Section 70.4See A v. [read post]
4 Jun 2020, 4:48 pm by Rohit De
Born to an intelligence officer in the British Indian Army, M.M Kaye returned to Simla in 1941 after a decade of living in London and earning a living as a writer and children’s book illustrator. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 9:12 am by Lorelie S. Masters
  For example, the New York Insurance Law specifically provides that evidence relating to other “similarly situated” policyholders is relevant to the issue of the materiality of an alleged misrepresentation in the policy application.5 As exemplified by the New York Court of Appeals in Belt Painting v. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 9:12 am by Lorelie S. Masters and Paul T. Moura
  For example, the New York Insurance Law specifically provides that evidence relating to other “similarly situated” policyholders is relevant to the issue of the materiality of an alleged misrepresentation in the policy application.5 As exemplified by the New York Court of Appeals in Belt Painting v. [read post]
15 May 2010, 12:22 am by INFORRM
The other three are Williams v MGN Ltd [2009] EWHC 3150 (QB) and Lonzim Plc v Sprague [2009] EWHC 2838 (QB) and Budu v BBC [2010] EWHC 616 (QB). [read post]
18 Dec 2011, 11:50 pm by Tessa Shepperson
R v Weston and Williams - Worcester Crown Court Here the defendants ran a letting agency called Premier Places in Redditch and Worcester. [read post]
9 Jul 2023, 4:35 pm by INFORRM
On 4 July 2023, Heather Williams J heard preliminary arguments and a strike out application in Davidoff v Hargrave. [read post]
22 Oct 2017, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
On 18 October 2017 Sir David Eady heard an application in the case of Obileye v Williams & anr Events 2 December 2017, Media Democracy Festival, Clore Management Centre, Malet Street, London WC1 26 February 2018, “Global Internet and Jurisdiction Conference,” Ottowa, Canada. [read post]
29 Aug 2008, 1:25 pm
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: CAFC sets strict standards to establish inequitable conduct: Star Scientific v R J Reynolds Tobacco: (Hal Wegner), (Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog), (Patent Prospector), (Patent Docs), (Patently-O), (more from Patently-O), (Philip Brooks), (Law360), (I/P Updates), Safe harbour ruling in Io v Veoh could help YouTube in Viacom… [read post]
7 Jul 2012, 12:16 pm by NL
May, R (on the application of) v Birmingham City Council [2012] EWHC 1399 (Admin)When can a Local Authority refuse to accept an application as homeless? [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 4:53 am
 It's Case C-657/11 Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology (BEST) v Bert Peelaers and Visys NV. [read post]