Search for: "Pigeon v. Pigeon" Results 21 - 40 of 150
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Oct 2018, 3:10 am by Jeb Clulow and Catriona Casha
  As you will see below, it is quite different from the more typical ICA incorporation clause such as that found in D/S A/S Idaho v Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 3:47 pm by Olga V. Mack
Notes to my (legal) self. [read post]
16 Dec 2014, 4:01 pm by David Smith
Charalambous & Anor v Maureen Rosairie Ng & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 1604 The Court of Appeal has again thrown the cat among the tenancy deposit protection pigeons. [read post]
30 Jul 2007, 8:22 am
  But unlike Horwitz, I'll stick to stories with very serious legal implications: "Contraception to control Hollywood's pigeons":  If this is occurring without pigeon consent, is this the avian Buck v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 9:01 am by rdasgupta
It probably will not surprise most people to learn that in today’s wired world, usage of “snail mail” is going the way of the carrier pigeon. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 2:17 pm by Joe Patrice
[Jezebel] * Are you keeping up with Kirby v. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 10:17 pm
The problem is that these exemptions are tightly pigeon holed, and unless a transfer falls squarely within a pigeon hole, the transferee in a non-market transaction may be caught by a significant tax. [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 12:15 pm by DMLP Staff
The DMLP submitted an amicus curiae brief (pdf) last week to the Sixth Circuit in the case of Seaton v. [read post]
1 May 2016, 12:08 am
The IPKat is delighted to host a guest contribution by Simon Chapman (Lewis Silkin) on this very topic and on a case (Jack Wills v House of Fraser) in which he and his team have acted for the defendant.Here's what Simon writes:"Following Mr Justice Arnold’s finding (Jack Wills Limited v House of Fraser (Stores) Limited [2014] EWHC 110 (Ch)) that retailer House of Fraser was liable for trade mark infringement and passing off after adopting a… [read post]
12 Jul 2007, 5:11 am
The case citation is Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) A Daubert motion is a motion, raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to a jury. [read post]