Search for: "Dyson Inc."
Results 21 - 40
of 95
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Apr 2018, 7:15 am
" Dyson, Inc. et al v. [read post]
22 May 2011, 12:00 pm
In Courtroom 1, Gale and another v Serious Organised Crime Agency is to be heard by Lords Phillips, Brown, Mance, Judge, Clarke, Dyson and Reed. [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 4:06 pm
The Court of Appeal decision in Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311(27 March 2015) (Dyson MR and Sharp LJ in a joint judgment; McFarlane LJ concurring), affirming the judgment of Tugendhat J (at[2014] EWHC 13 (QB) (16 January 2014)), is a very important decision on damages for invasion of privacy, and it raises significant questions about the correctness of Feeney J’s reasoning in the earlier Irish case of Collins v FBD Insurance plc [2013] IEHC 137 (14 March 2013). [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 12:53 pm
NAD Recommends Dyson Modify Air Purifier Claims In response to a challenge from rival air purifier manufacturer Guardian Technologies, LLC, the NAD has recommended that Dyson, Inc., modify or discontinue certain claims the company made for its Pure Hot + Cool Link and Pure Cool Link Air Purifiers. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 4:25 am
Starting today in the Supreme Court is the two day appeal of Oracle America Inc (formerly Sun Microsystems Inc) v M-Tech Data Ltd, listed to be heard by Lords Walker, Clarke, Sumption, Reed, and Carnwath. [read post]
17 Jun 2014, 11:39 am
The advertising was brought to the NAD’s attention by competing vacuum cleaner manufacturer, Dyson, Inc. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 9:36 am
NAD Shuts Down Dyson’s Dirty Fight Against Paper Towels On November 28, 2016, NAD recommended that Dyson B2B, Inc., discontinue its video advertising that its Airblade hand dryer is a “cleaner way” to dry your hands because its HEPA filter captures 99.97 percent of bacteria, and using paper towels only accelerates the spread of pathogenic bacteria. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 9:07 am
Vacuums In response to a competitor challenge by Dyson, Inc., NAD recommended that SharkNinja Operating LLC discontinue certain advertising claims that compared the company’s Shark Rocket DeluxePro Vacuum to upright vacuums and in particular, to the Dyson V6 vacuum. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 9:55 am
The first appeal is Ernest Lockhart v The Queen to be heard on Monday 18 July 2011 by Lords Brown, Mance, Kerr, Dyson and Wilson. [read post]
24 Dec 2023, 10:12 am
National Decorating Service, Inc. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 12:58 am
HemCon, Inc. [read post]
17 May 2016, 7:45 am
NAD also recommended that Shark discontinue its “dust cup” head-to-head product demonstration with Dyson and modify its disclosures on other product demonstrations to clearly state that the comparisons are limited to only one specific Dyson model, not Dyson’s entire line. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 12:27 pm
TA Sciences Prohibited from Making False and Unsubstantiated Health Claims Telomerase Activation Sciences, Inc. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 12:27 pm
TA Sciences Prohibited from Making False and Unsubstantiated Health Claims Telomerase Activation Sciences, Inc. [read post]
11 Jan 2024, 6:44 am
There was a report of the case on Stuff And three “bonus” cases from the US: US Dominion, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 7:08 am
Other speakers include Esther Dyson, Jim Jones, David Curle and Sabrina Pacifici. [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 11:43 am
Grimsby Diesel Motors Inc (1988) 32 C.L.R. 32 (Ont. [read post]
10 Jan 2022, 8:52 am
Shaw, Aspects of Banking and Financial Services Law (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2021). [read post]
16 May 2008, 2:08 am
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Raphael & Anor, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 1014 (13 May 2008) Brind & Ors, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 934 (16 April 2008) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Coyne & Anor v DRC Distribution Ltd & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 488 (15 May 2008) SK (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 495 (15 May 2008) High Court (Chancery Division) Masood & Ors v Zahoor & Ors [2008] EWHC 1034 (Ch) (14 May 2008) High Court… [read post]
11 Jul 2015, 8:01 am
We know from caselaw, for example Lucasfilm, Interlegoand the much earlier 'Popeye' case (King Features Syndicate Inc. v. [read post]
