Search for: "State v. Good Bear" Results 4181 - 4200 of 5,191
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Dec 2010, 2:54 pm
With the United States importing more than $1 trillion of goods annually, Costco could affect global trade in any good bearing a copyrighted work. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 1:54 pm by Bexis
, 2010 WL 4870149, at *7 (quoting State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 3:37 am
[this fits with the Court's ruling in Case C-127/09 Coty Prestige Lancaster v Simex, noted by the IPKat here] (2), (3) and (4) The trade mark proprietor is entitled to oppose further commercialisation of the unboxed products within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104 and Article 13(2) of Regulation No 40/94 where the outer packaging have been removed from perfumes and cosmetics without the consent of the trade mark proprietor if, as a result of the removal of the outer… [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 12:59 pm by Roy Ginsburg
The Ninth Circuit recently had the opportunity to consider some of these issues in the case of Mattel, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 2:36 am by Kelly
Medinol Limited (EPLAW) EWHC (Pat): Costs order knocks spots off pimple patent: Select Healthcare v Cromptons (PatLit) EWPCC: ‘User’ basis available for assessment of trade mark damages: National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Silveria (t/a C S Movers) (IP finance) Do it by the book: case management and questions for reference: Westwood v Knight; SAS Institute v World Programming (IPKat) EWCA finds Grimme’s agricultural machinery patent… [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 4:24 am by SHG
         An excellent example of this trend can be found in the Wisconsin case of State v. [read post]
4 Dec 2010, 7:58 pm by Adam Levitin
Ultimately, the evidence needed here would be an affidavit from every party in the chain of title stating that it had good title at the time it transferred the loans. [read post]
4 Dec 2010, 11:16 am by Vincent LoTempio
 "Statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages. [read post]
4 Dec 2010, 8:00 am by Kent Scheidegger
Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), opponents thought they had killed the death penalty for good. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 10:00 pm by Rosalind English
Despite constant citation, the effect of the “death row” case of Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439 has been profoundly diluted by a more recent line of authorities on the jurisdictional limits of the Convention under Article 1, notably, Bankovic v Belgium and others (2007) 44 EHRR 1 and R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26: The Claimants are US citizens convicted and sentenced by US Courts in respect of offences… [read post]