Search for: "Hollister v. Hollister"
Results 21 - 40
of 121
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Mar 2017, 4:12 pm
KGaA v. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 5:03 pm
Polak of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLPDefendant: Giorgio V. [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 10:37 am
Delicato Vineyards v. [read post]
1 May 2016, 12:08 am
However, following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hollister Inc v Medik Ostomy Supplies Limited [2012] EWCA Civ1419, some commentators believed that defendants would be unable to deduct general overheads (ie overheads that support the defendant’s business in general, such as rent, management and advertising) from their profits after direct costs (such as VAT and cost of purchasing or manufacturing the infringing items) had been deducted.And so it was that Jack… [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 9:45 am
(Indiana) v. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 9:45 am
(Indiana) v. [read post]
31 Oct 2015, 8:53 am
Fitch, Taft Stettinius and Hollister, LLP, Columbus, for Petitioner American Municipal Power. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 5:30 am
Utah v. [read post]
13 Sep 2015, 8:31 am
Further, Page v Hewetts Solicitors and another [2013] EWHC 2845 (Ch) is authority that a claim for an account of profits is a non-monetary claim. [read post]
14 May 2015, 7:33 am
Daniels v. [read post]
13 May 2015, 11:21 am
The defence, quoting Kitchen LJ in Hollister Inc v Medik Ostomy Supplies Ltd, argued that this would not be proportionate, and that since an account of profits was an equitable relief, the court had discretion as to whether to apply it or not. [read post]
13 May 2015, 5:44 am
The defence, quoting Kitchen LJ in Hollister Inc v Medik Ostomy Supplies Ltd, argued that this would not be proportionate, and that since an account of profits was an equitable relief, the court had discretion as to whether to apply it or not. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 11:22 am
The jiplp weblog features a review by Mr Justice Arnold on the economics of copyright which concludes with an expression of regret that it was not available to the Court of Appeal when it adopted the incremental costs rule in Hollister Inc v Medik Ostomy Supplies Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1419 [on which see the AmeriKat's posts here and here]. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 12:17 pm
SanDiskCorp. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2014, 1:57 pm
In Carrera v. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 8:10 am
” Caitlin is now working at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP and awaiting her July 2014 bar results. [read post]
21 Sep 2014, 5:56 am
Longshore v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 6:59 am
Sensory Technologies LLC v. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 3:29 pm
Levitt v. [read post]
