Search for: "Federal Express Corporation v. Focus Corporation" Results 341 - 360 of 562
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Feb 2012, 7:42 am by Stikeman Elliott LLP
Consistent with this objective, the Federal government made its intentions clear that it expects expeditious regulatory approvals of the proposed infrastructure required to diversify markets for Canadian energy. [read post]
30 Sep 2018, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
The Indian Express has considered the implications of the case. [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 7:17 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
In addition, the federal cases examined in the Report are indexed by federal circuit – an invaluable feature that further enhances the Report’s utility. [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 8:00 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com]   Highlights this week included: Advocate General opines advertisement comparing perfume to L’Oreal’s did not infringe trade marks; translation issue: L’Oréal v Bellure (Out-Law) (IPKat) (Class 46) (IPKat) (Class 46) (Managing Intellectual Property) (Law360) US Patent reform 2009 (Inventive Step) (Hal Wegner) (Patently-O)… [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 5:02 pm by Wolfgang Demino
Through the Access Group National Loan Program ("Access Loan Program"), Access offers both federally guaranteed and private, guaranteed education loans. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 12:25 am by Marie Louise
-Conn (IPKat) (EPLAW) EWHC (Ch): All threats, no action…: Best Buy Co Inc and another v Worldwide Sales Corporation Espana SL (IPKat)   United States  US General California’s Trade Secret disclosure statute doesn’t apply in Federal Court – or maybe it does (IP ADR Blog) US Patents USPTO wants to change restriction practice (Patent Baristas) The post-Bilski landscape: Why some tried, but failed, to ban ‘business method’… [read post]
13 May 2015, 4:37 am
In Sheraton Corporation of America v Sheraton Motels Ltd [1964] RPC 202, the US hotel chain had an arguable case to justify an interlocutory injunction against use of its mark; the goodwill was based on the fact that customers living in the United Kingdom booked rooms in the plaintiff’s hotels through the plaintiff’s London office or through UK-based travel agents. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 7:39 am by admin
Federal Election Commission. [read post]
2 Sep 2020, 9:39 am by John Jascob
A sixth dialog with Federated Project and Trade Finance Tender Fund, focused on that fund’s business of investing in supply chain financings (not discussed here). [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 7:28 pm
The alignment of the spheres of politics, law, and economic activity--subsumed within the overarching principles of international human rights--requires a refocus of the enterprise of business and human rights as a legal-policy matter from the State duty to protect human rights to the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 9:15 am by John Elwood
(relisted after the Sept. 27, Oct. 8 and Oct. 15 conferences) North American Coal Corporation v. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 6:02 pm by Contributor
Unlike the final report, this article will primarily focus on environmental SLAPPs because public interest groups and ordinary middle-class citizens that speak out on environmental issues tend to be the targets of SLAPPs.[4] Ordinary middle-class citizens are particularly vulnerable targets because of their personal liability, as well as their lack of financial support and ideological dedication to defend against a SLAPP lawsuit.[5] This focus on should not be taken to imply that… [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 6:00 am by David Kris
”[25]  Others have declined to impose sanctions for noncompliance, at least where the recipient is found to be acting in good faith, expressing “considerable discomfort to think that a court of law should order a violation of law, particularly on the territory of the sovereign whose law is in question. [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 6:16 pm by Jeanne Huang
Through these cases the High Court elected not to follow the English approach (see Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd) which requires that another forum is clearly or distinctly more appropriate. [read post]