Search for: "TAYLOR v. TAYLOR"
Results 3561 - 3580
of 4,257
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 May 2010, 11:04 am
Taylor, 529 U. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 6:56 am
In Taylore v. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 10:47 am
PLI Hot Topics in Advertising Law 2010 Provisional Remedies: TROs & Preliminary Injunctions in Advertising Cases David H. [read post]
17 Oct 2024, 3:18 am
In his famous concurrence in Youngstown Sheet v. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 5:37 am
Virtual property: Bragg v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 1:25 am
Taylor v. [read post]
8 May 2009, 10:08 am
Michael Taylor, of Columbia, for Appellant.J. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 2:41 am
Next week in Parliament Monday 25 March 2013, 2.30pm, Legislation – Crime and Courts Bill [HL] – Consideration of Commons amendments – Lord Taylor of Holbeach, Main Chamber, House of Lords. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 10:06 am
X v. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 12:00 am
[Selim v NYC Transit Authority, 220 AD2d 515]Terminating an employee for failing to turn in his keys when ordered. [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 4:29 am
See Larkin v. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 4:29 am
In the meantime, Katy Perry is happy to be in the news for something other than her feud with Taylor Swift. [read post]
25 May 2020, 6:30 am
The other is that Texas v. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 3:05 pm
The Kats are all grateful to Katfriend and occasional guest blogger Paul England (Taylor Wessing) for teasing out the relevant facts and explaining them so succinctly here:Factual Background SDL Hair Ltd v Next Row Ltd & others [2014] EWHC 2084 is the inquiry as to damages judgment of Judge Hacon in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, England and Wales, that followed the decision of 14 June 2013 on liability by Mr Recorder Richard Meade QC [noted on PatLit here]. [read post]
11 Aug 2019, 6:41 am
The 7th Circuit contrasted this case with a prior case involving Gatorade's use of another company's trade mark as part of a slogan, Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 12:00 am
[v] The U.N. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 3:34 am
Finding for Goldman, Judge Forrest’s February decision was a stark contrast to the general agreement among U.S. courts that when a party embeds a photo into an article, and thus, does not actually create a copy of the image or store it on its server, there is no new “display” of the photo for copyright purposes, and as a result, no copyright infringement - although case such as Perfect 10, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Mar 2018, 8:28 am
In the wake of the Blurred Lines decision, and the more recent Taylor [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am
[Selim v NYC Transit Authority, 220 AD2d 515]Terminating an employee for failing to turn in his keys when ordered. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 5:53 pm
It was also announced that the case of Taylor v Associated Newspapers (incidentally based on an article by, Charles Sale, the same Mail journalist as the Kenyon case) had settled and the jury trial which had been last week did not take place. [read post]
