Search for: "Does 1-51"
Results 381 - 400
of 3,921
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Feb 2017, 1:35 pm
’ OCGA § 51–12–5.1 (c). [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 10:47 am
Regardless of AB 51’s litigation, Saad explains, agreements signed before January 1, 2020, will continue to be valid. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 12:16 am
Why does the own name defence matter? [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 10:45 am
"Does the Gap in Migration Research between High-income Countries and the Rest of the World Matter? [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 5:53 pm
Subsection (b)(1): Individual in Process of Being Adopted by Married Couple. [read post]
14 Sep 2023, 3:39 am
The CJEU answered that unauthorized (non-trasformative) sampling can infringe a phonogram producer’s rights and German free use is against EU law (reported here and here).Subsequently, the BGH referred the case back to the Court of Appeal (OLG Hamburg, reported here).Meanwhile in June 2021, Germany’s implementation of Art. 17(7) DSM Directive in § 51a UrhG came into force, establishing an exception for pastiche.Before the Court of Appeal, Pelham argued that acts committed before… [read post]
8 Dec 2016, 4:59 am
’Today's AG OpinionThis morning Advocate General (AG) Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered his Opinion, and held the view that:(1) the sale of a multimedia player of the kind at issue in the main proceedings constitutes “communication to the public” within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive [note (para 33) that the submission of the Commission is that in the case at hand Article 3(1)… [read post]
23 Aug 2015, 2:21 pm
Strangely, however, s. 51(1) does not seem to prohibit contracting work to unlicensed persons. [read post]
14 Aug 2021, 12:26 pm
J.A. 446–51. [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 9:46 am
The court noted that § 33-24-51 is expressly limited to defenses concerning sovereign immunity and that the statute does not “implicate” the statute of limitations requirement found in § 36-11-1. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 6:20 am
The Order to Seal should be unsealed, under 51 Okla. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 2:51 am
That was so even though it was common practice in the beauty products sector to market products either under a combination of surnames and first names or alternatively under one or the other.The decision in Case C-51/09 Becker v Harman International Industries (BARBARA BECKER v BECKER) could apply by analogy to this controversy in order to conclude that a likelihood of confusion does not automatically exist 'when the earlier mark consists of a first name and the mark… [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 4:00 am
[1] On the other hand, does it make sense that elected lawyers and paralegals should decide what education and training is appropriate for licensing and what professional conduct should be required for appropriate advocacy in courts and tribunals and generally? [read post]
3 May 2022, 6:05 am
” These principles are reflected in provisions of the Additional Protocol I, including the prohibitions making civilians the object of attack (codified in Article 51(2)) and the prohibition on attacks causing excessive harm to civilians (Article 51(5)(b)). [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 11:51 pm
1)], in opposition [proceedings], does the applicant, as the defendant to the opposition, have the right to invoke prior rights which could constitute prior rights to the earlier trademark used as a prior right in the opposition? [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 7:16 am
Referral of a point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appealby the President of the European Patent Office(Article 112(1)(b) EPC)Under Article 112(1)(b) EPC the President of the European Patent Office refers the following points of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:1. [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 4:40 am
The Court's thoughts can be found in Case T-258/13, involving revocation proceeding for non-use brought according to Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark by the German company Matratzen GmbH in 2010 in respect of the ARKTIS word mark, held by the Swiss company KBT & Co. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 11:59 pm
The statement by a majority does not equate to unanimous approval by all parties. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 11:24 am
July 1, 2011). [read post]
19 Jan 2022, 4:34 am
No. 12, 13 1). [read post]
