Search for: "French v. French"
Results 3921 - 3940
of 5,347
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2018, 1:15 pm
Instead, in cases like United States v. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 7:13 am
For example the French zealously guard their language; it is not possible for people to declare their pronouns. [read post]
29 Nov 2013, 5:10 am
Similarities can be drawn with the recent case of Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop) [discussed by the IPKat here] in which the pop star Rihanna succeeded in her claim for passing off against the retail moguls Topshop, who used her image on a T-shirt without her permission (although Topshop thought they were on solid ground by getting a licence from the photographer to use the picture). [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 3:37 am
The IPKat and Merpel therefore salute occasional guest contributor Paul England (Taylor Wessing) on notching up another birthday and thank him for the following note on a recent ruling from the Patents Court, England and Wales:Deep fat fryer patent almost gets its chipsEnglish chipsIt is perhaps a testament to the enduring love affair between the British and chips [called "French fries" by our American cousins, who reserve the term "chips" for something quite different, notes Merpel]… [read post]
5 Feb 2015, 8:11 am
A little over a year ago we left Case C-383/12 P Environmental Manufacturing LLP v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Société Elmar Wolf – reported here in the IPKat – and the Court of Justice making it clear to the General Court that 'what it said explicitly was what it meant'. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 10:02 am
In this sense, decisions like those of the US Copyright Office in Zarya of the Dawn [IPKat here] and the Beijing Internet Court in Li v Liu [IPKat here] are helpful. [read post]
9 Jun 2013, 2:32 pm
This is a quite common rule in Europe (for example codified in Article 700 of the French civil procedure code: English version here) that gives a chance to the winning party to recover some of the expenses that have been made during the trial. [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 8:20 pm
The paper may pertain to any topic related to intellectual property law, and may be submitted in French or English. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 7:00 am
A central issue in Schrems v. [read post]
26 May 2019, 7:48 am
The second covers the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Pepper v. [read post]
30 Sep 2020, 8:57 am
The tax shelter in the infamous Knetsch v. [read post]
22 Nov 2015, 9:48 am
It dives into the history of the 1909 Copyright Act and the resulting Herbert v Shanley Co. [read post]
UK court discusses copyright protection of fictional characters and defences for parody and pastiche
9 Jun 2022, 1:41 am
In a judgment handed down yesterday - Shazam v Only Fools The Dining Experience and Others [2022] EWHC 1379 (IPEC) - the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) answered 'yes' and applied guidance derived from EU law, including the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Cofemel (Katposts here).Let's see what happened.BackgroundOnly Fools and Horses (OFAH) is a successful BBC TV series that ran between 1981 and 1991, with also some Christmas… [read post]
15 Apr 2021, 11:38 pm
"In late March, I was wondering whether the DOJ and the FTC would continue to fundamentally disagree on the application of antitrust law to SEP abuse, given that the FTC didn't seek a Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit's FTC v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 1:49 pm
Steve Vladeck and Benjamin Wittes argued that important caveats to the Nixon v. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 4:30 am
And now on to our little time-capsule case, Swisher v. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 6:52 pm
Labate v. [read post]
29 Oct 2015, 4:26 am
As a supplement to prior writing on this issue, consider the following, which reflects an analysis of citation data collected from all reported federal judicial opinions that have analyzed CIL since the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Sosa v. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 4:32 pm
In the UK, the High Court ruled in the Adam Ant case that “[f]acial make-up was not a painting within section 3 of the Copyright Act” [referring here to the 1956 Copyright Act, which was subsequently repealed and replaced by Section 4 of the CDPA] (see Merchandising Corporation of America v Harpbond [1983] FSR 32). [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 2:58 am
A few hours before the World Cup’s kick-off match, the General Court wrote another Chapter of the “R10” saga, concerning a trade mark related to one of the funniest Brazilian football players ever [Case T‑137/09 RENV, Nike International Ltd v OHIM, available in Frenchand Spanish]. [read post]
