Search for: "Long v. Arnold"
Results 321 - 340
of 603
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Mar 2015, 11:11 am
Eleonora and Hugo Cuddigan QC attended a lively discussion chaired by the Hon Mr Justice Arnold. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 7:57 pm
Arnold Schecter and Dr. [read post]
7 Mar 2015, 8:58 am
Rob WeinerDuring the Supreme Court oral argument in King v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 2:43 pm
No muesli mix-up likely in the world where rabbits reignSupreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) Ltd [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch) is another blockbuster judgment from Mr Justice Arnold in the High Court, Chancery Division, England and Wales. [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 2:23 am
Tobias is also letting us have a copy of an English translation of Kecofa v Lancôme. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 3:06 pm
Earlier today this Kat posted this note on Supreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) Ltd [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch), the latest in a line of important trade mark rulings from Mr Justice Arnold in the Chancery Division, England and Wales. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 7:14 am
Except, devices that people carry around these days have come a long way from the banana-sized box lawyer Johnny Cochran made famous carrying around in the early-to-mid 1990s. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 2:55 am
| Dutch diverge with English as Novartis prevails on Zoledronic Acid in Netherlands | Slogan and TMs | The coffee capsule wars | Declining public trust in innovation | IPEC’s ruling in Global Flood Defence Systems & Another v Van den Noort Innovations BV & Others | Again on CJEU ruling in Case C-419/13 Art & Allposters | Biotech financing: the risk components, ‘going long’ and patents as knowledge currency. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 1:39 pm
The (alleged) hoity-toity backgrounds of the justices—underscored in a January 22, 2015 Washington Post piece—came into laser focus in oral arguments in Rodriguez v. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 5:15 am
The challenges, however, hit their own high water mark when the Supreme Court granted review in King v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:31 am
This Kat posted last month on the fascinating case of Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat), in which Arnold J gave the first detailed UK consideration of what a Swiss-form claim means. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 5:13 am
But the recent Second Appellate District reversal of Judge's Lewis' ruling in Lappe v. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:20 am
This augurs a long-term threat to the acceptance of IP as well, observes Neil.* Flood's patent threats action runs dryPatent actions are highly unusual territory where to see successful summary judgment applications, writes Katfriend Paul England while commenting the IPEC’s ruling in Global Flood Defence Systems & Another v Van den Noort Innovations BV & Others [2015] EWHC 153 (IPEC). [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 8:30 am
Ohio “officially” signed on to the movement in 1993 in Arnold v. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 5:01 am
[1] Arnold v Britton & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 902 (22 July 2013), para 45 [2] Ibid, para 50 [3] Ibid, para 57 [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 1:00 am
On Monday 26 January 2015 the Court will hear the appeal of Arnold v Britton & Ors regarding the true interpretation of 5 versions of a clause which has been described as a service charge clause in the long lease agreement of 25 chalets in the respondent’s leisure park. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 8:09 am
Never too late 26 [week ending Sunday 28 December] -- Arnold J on Ice cream van design in Whitby Specialist Vehicles v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles | Adios to positive right of TM in Spain | Costs of Vestergaard Fransen v Bestnet Europe | Irish PTO on slogan TMs | Merpel summarises what’s going on with EPO | CoA for England and Wales on patent infringement by numbers in Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v… [read post]
14 Jan 2015, 10:05 am
The first is long-time reader and occasional guest contributor Aaron Wood (Swindell & Pearson Ltd), whose warm smile and good humour are a cheery antidote to the dark, dark days of winter. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 10:21 am
Co. v. [read post]
27 Dec 2014, 2:19 am
So, blocking orders: fine so long as they're reasonable! [read post]
