Search for: "STATE v. PUMA"
Results 21 - 40
of 62
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Sep 2018, 4:05 pm
The case is Noffsinger v. [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 1:25 am
’“ 3) International Investment Arbitration, the European Patent Office, and the Future Unified Patent Court by Thomas Musmann “Since the Eli Lilly v. [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 1:20 am
’“ 3) International Investment Arbitration, the European Patent Office, and the Future Unified Patent Court by Thomas Musmann “Since the Eli Lilly v. [read post]
21 Aug 2018, 10:00 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 6:18 am
Puma disputed all parts of the appeal. [read post]
22 Dec 2017, 6:10 am
AsbellCah-Nah-Dah, Cis-Boom-Bah: Star Athletica and Intellectual Property Protection of Fashion Products in CanadaSheldon BurshteinCommentary: Puma SE v. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 5:20 am
Background In Noffsinger v. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 5:20 am
Background In Noffsinger v. [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 7:41 am
She registered with the state as qualifying for protection under PUMA, Conn. [read post]
10 Aug 2017, 12:56 pm
Only 4 cited © cases: Mazer v. [read post]
4 Mar 2017, 12:28 pm
In the Puma decision, which happened coincidentally almost the same day as this last episode in the Casado claim, the Spanish Supreme Court awarded damages to the plaintiff in a tort suit against two of the arbitrators; these arbitrators had apparently excluded their colleague, the third arbitrator, from key deliberations (the arbitration in question was a commercial arbitration not investor-state). [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 11:09 am
Florida Panthers v. [read post]
3 May 2015, 10:33 pm
After all, "holiday" is no more than a state of mind, surely. [read post]
17 Apr 2014, 4:26 pm
To date, only two UAS models (the Scan Eagle and Aerovironment’s Puma) have been certified, and they can only fly in the Arctic. [read post]
2 Jun 2013, 9:19 pm
” Puma predicted that the early spate of suits was a harbinger of more to come. [read post]
8 Jul 2012, 9:30 pm
South African case law that has referred to European decisions that have caused the UKIPO to summarise the Principles as they have been referred to above include Adcock Ingram v Cipla Medpro (Sabel v Puma), Laugh it off Promotions v SAB (Canon v MGM), Puma v Global Warming (Marca Mode v Adidas) and Cowbell v ICS Holdings (Canon v MGM). [read post]
1 Jul 2012, 10:40 pm
The Supreme Court of Appeal in Cowbell (see, eg para 10) confirms the adoption of the European “global appreciation” approach in Sabel V Puma, in principle, as the basis for applying the local infringement test, so there is clearance from the SCA to use the European approach.The upshot of all of this is that a formulaic approach has been developed in Europe and is well applied, most notably by the Community Trade Mark Office. [read post]
24 May 2012, 6:07 am
” Wal-Mart v Dukes. [read post]
22 May 2012, 8:55 pm
” Wal-Mart v Dukes. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 8:57 pm
The case of Adcock Ingram v Cipla Medpro reconsidered the notion that pharmaceuticals sold on prescription are less likely to be confused because they are dispensed by trained professionals in regulated circumstances. [read post]
