Search for: "Does v. Barry"
Results 321 - 340
of 868
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Mar 2016, 5:00 am
In Home Insurance Company v. [read post]
22 Mar 2016, 3:44 pm
SODRAC, one of Canada’s best known and most active copyright litigators and lobbyists, Barry Sookman, was quoted in the Wire Report on March 30, 2016 in a pay-walled article entitled “Should copyright tariffs be mandatory? [read post]
5 Mar 2016, 9:33 am
A plaintiff does not need to show any actual harm”. [read post]
2 Mar 2016, 9:37 am
Courtroom drama, does it get any better? [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 8:40 am
This indemnity does not, however, remove the carriers’ liability under the bill of lading and creates an additional administrative burden and cost to the trade. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 8:40 am
For more information, please read our Reed Smith client alert, written by Barry Stimpson, Jody Wood, and Justine Barthe-Dejean. [read post]
31 Dec 2015, 7:15 am
The intellectual property chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is certainly misunderstood. [read post]
24 Dec 2015, 5:40 am
But what does diversity mean? [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 8:00 am
O’Keefe v Caldwell (1949) Argus Law Reports 381. [read post]
22 Dec 2015, 2:50 pm
” The court thus distinguishes Walker v. [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 6:21 am
(citing Foley v. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 2:40 pm
* When does a broadcasting organisation not communicate works to the public? [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 1:36 pm
[h/t Barry Sookman] P.S. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 1:12 pm
RoundUp queries are limited by geographic parameters, but the software does not distinguish between military and civilian computers. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 5:11 am
It might not have been Jarndyce v. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 1:51 am
A Perth judge has dismissed accountant Barry McEloney’s claim for $120,000 in damages. [read post]
20 Oct 2015, 6:01 am
See, Barry Sookman, An FAQ on TPMs, Copyright and Bill C-32. [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 8:48 am
Scholz v. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 1:00 am
However, the court nonetheless held that this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the charge is extravagant and unconscionable. [read post]
