Search for: "KEYS v. PETERS" Results 381 - 400 of 1,154
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Aug 2019, 12:09 pm
Not so in Australia, where, as reported by Katfriend Tyrone Berger, the relevant test is whether an implied license can be successfully asserted by the alleged infringer.Trade Marks -Katfriend Jolena Ang reports from Singapore on a trade mark opposition involving both word mark and device mark elements describing tigers.GuestKat Peter Ling reports on a decision from the German Federal Court of Justice, where spare parts manufacturers were told that the shape of the mounting fixture, where a… [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
Lawyers for Judiciary Committee Democrats described McGahn as both “critical” and the “most important fact witness” before the lawsuit was filed, noting he witnessed key obstruction episodes examined by special counsel Robert Mueller. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 7:38 am by Brian Cordery
Insufficiency The key ground of insufficiency was ambiguity: whether the skilled person can establish whether a product falls within the claims. [read post]
18 Jul 2019, 8:51 pm by Samantha Maddern
In contrast, in The Environmental Group Ltd v Peter Bowd[5], a CEO claimed he was subjected to an investigation into his alleged misconduct, suspended and then sacked because he was a ‘whistle-blower’ – he had raised concerns in a report to the Board, and then lodged a complaint with ASIC, about alleged financial irregularities. [read post]
31 May 2019, 5:30 pm by Ilya Somin
Love Field.The Supreme Court is now considering whether it wants to review Love Terminal Partners v. [read post]
27 May 2019, 6:17 am by Richard Hunt
Like the now notorious Oscar Rosales‡ Peter Strojnik doesn’t seem to know when to quit. [read post]
26 May 2019, 2:13 pm
Rosie Burbidge reports on the Invista v Botes saga. [read post]
15 May 2019, 10:06 pm
Cecilia Sbrolli re-imagines the decision in the case Fuller v. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 1:07 am by Kevin LaCroix
  The policies in those cases were liability policies, not indemnity policies, a key distinction. [read post]