Search for: "State v. Word"
Results 4381 - 4400
of 40,637
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jan 2022, 2:03 pm
(See Pate v. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 9:06 pm
Pty Ltd. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2024, 12:03 pm
For these, the court says: “we find it difficult to believe that consumers searching for the phrase ‘Lerner & Rowe’ would not choose to click on the link that matches their search query word for word. [read post]
8 Sep 2020, 11:30 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 4:51 am
In Sue Carter v. [read post]
17 Sep 2024, 9:08 am
” Celanese Int’l Corp. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 4:23 pm
On 3 June 2020 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2020] UKSC 23. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 9:44 am
Given that the word "perpetual" can be defined to mean "eternal; permanent; lasting for eternity" it is certainly arguable that a perpetual licence should last forever, but in the recent case of BMS Computer Solutions Limited v AB Agri Limited [2010] EWHC 464 (Ch) it was held that a perpetual software licence was merely a licence "of indefinite duration" and could be terminated in accordance with other provisions of the relevant licence… [read post]
22 Nov 2017, 8:09 am
In other words, state law is preempted when “under the circumstances of the particular case,” it stands as an obstacle to Congressional purpose “—whether that ‘obstacle’ goes by the name of ‘conflicting; contrary to; repugnance; difference; irreconcilability; inconsistency; violation; curtailment; interference,’ or the like. [read post]
22 Nov 2017, 8:09 am
In other words, state law is preempted when “under the circumstances of the particular case,” it stands as an obstacle to Congressional purpose “—whether that ‘obstacle’ goes by the name of ‘conflicting; contrary to; repugnance; difference; irreconcilability; inconsistency; violation; curtailment; interference,’ or the like. [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 8:10 am
The Supreme Court of the United States recently decided the case of U.S. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 11:25 am
(Eugene Volokh) So holds United States v. [read post]
21 Oct 2019, 1:34 am
” In a welcome development, the CA backed the approach of Laddie J (“a judge with prolific expertise in the law of copyright”) in Cala Homes v Alfred McAlpine [1995] FSR 818 at p.835 over the narrower one of Lightman J in Robin Ray v Classic FM [1998] FSR 622 at [27]-[28]. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 12:55 pm
” (Kilby v. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 4:45 am
Supreme Court’s 1820 decision in U.S. v. [read post]
17 May 2012, 9:04 pm
In a word, yes. [read post]
7 May 2016, 4:10 pm
In V v Associated Newspapers [2016] EWCOP 21, published on 25 April, Mr Justice Charles, Deputy President and Judge in Charge of the Court of Protection, uses the word ‘prurient’ several times about the press coverage of earlier judgments in the case of ‘C’, the woman who ‘lost her sparkle’. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 2:14 pm
In Berezowsky v. [read post]
8 Feb 2018, 11:12 pm
The average consumer is unlikely to notice the similarities (i.e. the word "POLO" and the polo player device) without also noticing that the subject mark contains additional words. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 7:43 am
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Vance v. [read post]
