Search for: "United States v. Dutch"
Results 301 - 320
of 768
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Feb 2015, 6:11 pm
The Court said that for a U.S. court to have jurisdiction to hear these ATS claims, the claims must “touch and concern” the United States. [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 10:31 am
The same patent was previously held invalid by the UK Courts for lack of novelty as a result an invalid priority right in Novartis v Hospira (see [2013 EWCA 516 (Pat.) and [2013] EWCA Civ 1663). [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 2:30 am
In the United States the protection of three-dimensional marks falls under trade dress (defined in 15 USC 1127), and is more mailable than legislation applying purely to registered trademarks. [read post]
28 Dec 2014, 4:30 am
WeR1 WORLD NETWORK v. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 3:10 am
Henley’s name in a transformative nature invoking the protection of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution” and that “the advertisement is obviously a joke. [read post]
23 Nov 2014, 2:32 pm
They reiterate that for a case to be given jurisdiction by ATS it must a) touch and concern the United States with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality and: b) demonstrate that the conduct, prima facie, breaches a law of nations or treaty of the United States. [read post]
20 Nov 2014, 3:01 am
Critics of the UPC have been saying for a long time that the CJEU should have the final say just the way the Supreme Court of the United States can overrule the Federal Circuit. [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 5:27 am
The Dutch case that gave rise to this reference concerned the possibility of registering as a trade mark the well-known Stokke’s “Tripp Trapp” children’s chair, which the Dutch Supreme Court considered having a “high degree of originality”. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 7:57 am
Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., which effectively invalidated Chowdhury’s ATS legal theory. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 8:46 am
United States, 13-1487, voluntarily turned over to the FBI fifteen firearms while unrelated marijuana charges were pending against him. [read post]
26 Sep 2014, 2:06 pm
Royal Dutch Petroleum, which established that this form of jurisdiction is available only for claims that “touch and concern the territory of the United States” with “sufficient force” to displace the presumption against the extraterritorial application of U.S. law. [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 5:30 pm
The key law relied upon in the case, the Alien Tort Statute, requires, after a 2013 Supreme Court decision called Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum, that plaintiffs show that the matter “touch and concern” the United States in order for the case to proceed here. [read post]
10 Sep 2014, 7:33 am
Under the presumption against extraterritoriality, federal legislation applies only to conduct that occurs within the United States unless Congress affirmatively states that the statute applies to foreign conduct. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 9:01 pm
” Judge Mazzant wrote: “Shavers argues that the BTCST investments are not securities because Bitcoin is not money, and is not part of anything regulated by the United States. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 10:43 pm
” Prosecutor v. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 12:27 pm
Constitution was translated for the German- and Dutch-speaking populations of Pennsylvania and New York, but little attention has been paid to these translations until now. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 6:30 am
I read this passage as suggesting that the much-maligned “economic/non-economic” distinction in United States v. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 2:54 pm
A lawsuit, however, was brought in the United States, relying on the Alien Tort Statute—part of a Judiciary Act from 1789. [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 4:34 am
It appears that Fokker deliberately misused this exception to justify shipments from the United States. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 3:31 pm
The Argentinians will almost certainly try to spoil the German flow, and Ghana and the United States have proven that the Germans can be held or hobbled. [read post]
