Search for: "United States v. Cooper" Results 3501 - 3520 of 4,613
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Mar 2011, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
 Cooper, 2011 ONCA 150, where it held that the Courts of Ontario had jurisdiction against the re [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 11:27 am by gstasiewicz
The alleged harassment and retaliation began in 2008, when Hastings was Chairman of the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 7:02 am by Peggy McGuinness
But lawmakers cannot expect other countries to comply with their treaty obligations to us unless the United States observes its treaty obligations to them. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 4:22 am by INFORRM
 Cooper (2011 ONCA 150) the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction to try a defamation claim brought by an Ontario based academic against the “Slavic Review”, an academic journal published in the United States, of which 81 copies were distributed in Ontario. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 3:00 am
Property used predominantly outside the United States does not qualify for a Section 1603 grant. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 7:04 am by Ted Folkman
The State Department’s website explains: In July 2003, Russia unilaterally suspended all judicial cooperation with the United States in civil and commercial matters. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 7:17 am by admin
NEW YORK—Four managers and bankers at Credit Suisse Group AG have been charged with conspiring with other Swiss bankers to help U.S. customers use secret accounts to evade income tax, the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service announced Feb. 23 (United States v. [read post]
20 Feb 2011, 9:44 pm by Kelly
‘obviousness-type’ double patenting practise (America-Israel Patent Law) Injunction by ORT Israel against World ORT using name in Israel overturned (The IP Factor) United Kingdom An epic tale of… erm, patents and trademarks – EWHC (Pat) decides Datacard v Eagle (IPKat) (EPLAW) EWHC (Ch): Play-Doah ruling goes Hasbro’s way: Hasbro v Nahrmittel (Class 46) (IPKat) Hargreaves and the SME litigants (Solo Independent IP Practitioners) The patent… [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 9:08 pm
”[6] MPEP § 707.07(f) incorrectly states that an examiner “should” answer all material traversed; it’s a statutory “must. [read post]