Search for: "State v. Register"
Results 3141 - 3160
of 13,695
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Dec 2019, 1:30 am
Consorzio subsequently took Balema to court for infringement of the PGI, with Balema arguing that it didn't infringe the PGI as it didn't use the entirety of it and the components to the name are not protected separately.The Court faced only a single question, which asked "...whether Article 1 of Regulation No 583/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the protection of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ extends to the use of the individual non-geographical terms of… [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 1:30 am
Consorzio subsequently took Balema to court for infringement of the PGI, with Balema arguing that it didn't infringe the PGI as it didn't use the entirety of it and the components to the name are not protected separately.The Court faced only a single question, which asked "...whether Article 1 of Regulation No 583/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the protection of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ extends to the use of the individual non-geographical terms of… [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 1:30 am
Consorzio subsequently took Balema to court for infringement of the PGI, with Balema arguing that it didn't infringe the PGI as it didn't use the entirety of it and the components to the name are not protected separately.The Court faced only a single question, which asked "...whether Article 1 of Regulation No 583/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the protection of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ extends to the use of the individual non-geographical terms of… [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 1:30 am
Consorzio subsequently took Balema to court for infringement of the PGI, with Balema arguing that it didn't infringe the PGI as it didn't use the entirety of it and the components to the name are not protected separately.The Court faced only a single question, which asked "...whether Article 1 of Regulation No 583/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the protection of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ extends to the use of the individual non-geographical terms of… [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 1:23 pm
State v. [read post]
16 Dec 2019, 11:50 am
The Final Rule tracks Balestrieri v. [read post]
16 Dec 2019, 9:37 am
Casemaker’s parent company, Lawriter, has an agreement with the Georgia Secretary of State designating it as the exclusive publisher of the Georgia Rules and Regulations and giving it the right to license that content to other publishers. [read post]
15 Dec 2019, 4:05 pm
United States The Gu [read post]
14 Dec 2019, 12:01 am
In Shelby County v. [read post]
13 Dec 2019, 5:06 pm
In Pearson v. [read post]
13 Dec 2019, 9:39 am
In the case, Move Press, LLC v. [read post]
13 Dec 2019, 9:29 am
Render v. [read post]
12 Dec 2019, 5:45 am
Key Findings Following the 2018 South Dakota v. [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 9:20 pm
115(d)(ii)(D)(bb)(E)(v) “Accessibility of Database” for those reading along.) [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 9:01 pm
Sanders and Reynolds v. [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 9:20 am
by Dennis Crouch Peters v. [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 7:30 am
Yesterday the court heard argument in Holguin-Hernandez v. [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 1:30 am
Therefore the central issue in both the cases under appeal was the interpretation and application of the statutory incompatibility ground of decision identified in the majority judgment in the Supreme Court in R (Newhaven Port & Properties Ltd) v East Sussex County Council [2015] UKSC 7. [read post]
10 Dec 2019, 9:01 pm
In 1976 in Elrod v. [read post]
10 Dec 2019, 4:50 pm
Recently, in U.S. v. [read post]
