Search for: "FSR, Inc."
Results 21 - 40
of 43
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 May 2015, 10:38 am
They claimed damages under the cross undertaking given by AstraZeneca, seeking £32 million in respect of their losses.The law on the calculation of damages under a cross-undertakingIn his January 2014 judgment, Sales J referred to the judgment of Norris J in Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc [2008] EWC 2347, [2009] FSR 3 as explaining the general principles to be applied when assessing the damages payable under a cross-undertaking. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 1:58 am
Thus there is no de minimis rule: Ansul [2003] R.P.C. 40 at [39]; La Mer [2004] FSR 38 at [21], [24] and [25]; Sunrider [2006] ECR I-4237 at [72]; Leno Merken [2013] ETMR 16 at [55].Second hand use of the stereoImage: Bart Everson8. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 6:22 am
Legal background regarding Arrow-declarations The underlying jurisdiction was established in Arrow Generics v Merck & Co Inc [2007] FSR 39 and approved by the Court of Appeal in Fujifilm v AbbVie [2017] EWCA Civ. 1. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 12:17 am
They suggested that a court should consider whether: (i) the individual’s conduct would make them liable as an accessory irrespective of their status as a director; and then (ii) whether the fact that the individual is a director gives them a defence (see further MCA Records Inc v Charly [2001] EWCA Civ 1441, [2002] FSR 26 for details of possible such defences). [read post]
14 May 2019, 8:01 am
Gear Inc v Hi-Tech Sports plc [1992] FSR 121, Morritt J stated "…it seems to me that 'reason to believe' must involve the concept of knowledge of facts from which a reasonable man [person] would arrive at the relevant belief. [read post]
10 May 2013, 5:45 am
Orio Canada Inc., 2013 FC 109. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 4:52 am
Binnie J delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada added in Whirlpool Corp v Camco Inc [2001] FSR 46 at [49(c)] that "a 'mind willing to understand' necessarily pays close attention to the purpose and intent of the author. [read post]
26 Oct 2017, 4:52 am
In Lockton v Persons Unknown and Google Inc [2009] EWHC 3423 (QB). the court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to make an order against a company based in the United States without a place of business in England. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 1:53 am
Unicor GmbH Plastmachinen [1995] FSR 765, that the claims for breach of confidence were not claims in tort. [read post]
13 May 2015, 4:37 am
Lord Neuberger reviewed a long list of authorities of the House of Lords, the Privy Council and that of the Court of Appeal in Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar NP [1984] FSR 413, 462. [read post]
15 Dec 2015, 6:26 am
Molycorp and Zamr are indirect subsidiaries of Molycorp Inc, a US company who petitioned for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June 2015. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 2:11 pm
Such a declaration takes support from Arrow Generics Ltd v Merck & Co Inc .FKB's declaration intends to establish that its products were anticipated or obvious at the priority dates of the two patents. [read post]
9 Feb 2014, 2:27 pm
The leading case on false endorsement is Irvine v Talksport [2002] FSR 60, in which Eddie Irvine successfully argued passing off when Talksport used his image for an advertising campaign. [read post]
22 Jul 2022, 5:35 am
The letter stated in point: The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) has recently learned that Demotech, Inc. [read post]
12 Oct 2018, 4:17 pm
Gulati [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch) [2016] FSR 12- which allowed damages for phone hacking – was not a DPA case. [read post]
1 Jan 2014, 4:33 am
A related prior dispute between Convatec and Smith & Nephew involving nonsilverised versions of their respective products, Aquacel and Durafiber, and relating to a different patent, was reported by the IPKat here, and the appeal decision upholding the first instance judgement can be read on BAILII.But let us return to the current case Smith & Nephew Plc v Convatec Technologies Inc & Anor No 2 [2013] EWHC 3955 (Pat) (12 December 2013). [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 9:46 am
The Court of Appeal drew assistance from the Australian case of Dart Industries Inc v Decor Corp Pty Ltd [1994] FSR 567 which involved an account of profits. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 2:58 am
Artistic works of art (sculpture and works of artistic craftsmanship) have the fullest protection; then come works with “eye appeal” (AMP Inc v Utilux Pty Ltd [1971] FSR 572); and under Part III of the 1988 Act a modest level of protection has been extended to purely functional objects (the exhaust system of a motor car being the familiar example). [read post]
17 May 2015, 1:08 am
While consumers’ knowledge of the claimant’s indicia may play a part in helping to establishing goodwill (e.g. pre-trading reputation could reduce the length of trading-time needed to establish goodwill: Home Box Office Inc v Channel 5 Home Box Office Ltd [1982] FSR 449], such reputation has not been sufficient on its own to satisfy the first of the three requirements laid out by the Jif Lemon test. [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 5:00 am
If you are interested in database licensing, the intrigue of how complex geo-spatial based services are developed, electronic mapping and polygons, the legality of scraping, how online terms governing databases are construed, and database rights, then the recent UK decision in 77m Ltd v Ordnance Survey Ltd [2019] EWHC 3007 (Ch) (08 November 2019) is for you. [read post]
