Search for: "German v. German"
Results 4521 - 4540
of 5,202
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Mar 2010, 5:22 am
KG et al. v. [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 5:22 am
KG et al. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2010, 4:33 am
Giron v. [read post]
6 Mar 2010, 3:52 am
Zuccarini (The Gray Blog) (Seattle Trademark Lawyer) (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) (ipwars) (Las Vegas Trademark Attorney) District Court E D Michigan: Gripe site prevails in domain cybersquatting case: Career Agents Network, Inc v careeragentsnetwork.biz (Ars Technica) US Trade Marks & Domain Names – Lawsuits and strategic steps Google - Google dismisses some claims and gets some attorneys’ fees: Jurin v. [read post]
6 Mar 2010, 3:52 am
Zuccarini (The Gray Blog) (Seattle Trademark Lawyer) (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) (ipwars) (Las Vegas Trademark Attorney) District Court E D Michigan: Gripe site prevails in domain cybersquatting case: Career Agents Network, Inc v careeragentsnetwork.biz (Ars Technica) US Trade Marks & Domain Names – Lawsuits and strategic steps Google - Google dismisses some claims and gets some attorneys’ fees: Jurin v. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 3:36 am
Hull, Prisoners in Colonial Warfare: The Imperial German ExampleRaphaëlle Branche, The French in Algeria: Can There Be Prisoners of War In A 'Domestic' Operation? [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 1:19 am
Thanks go to fellow blogger Hugo Cox for drawing the IPKat's attention to this note on the UK's IPO website concerning a reference to the European Court of Justice in Case C- 34/10 Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace e.V. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 8:49 pm
” It’s an old saw, one Holmes invoked in his cramped opinion in Frohwerk v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 7:59 am
The Court referred to a previous ruling (State v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 4:31 am
For a link to the panel decision, Lautsi v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 2:46 pm
In its judgment in Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 10:23 am
Isabel V. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 9:06 am
: how the case of Boy Scouts of America v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 5:05 am
(IP Osgoode) Australia: University of Western Australia’s application to appeal FCAFC’s decision in University of Western Australia v Gray fails (IP Whiteboard) Colombia/EU/Peru: Tough IP health provisions in Europe’s Colombia/Peru trade deal (IP Watch) (IP tango) EU: Something more about Swiss type claims: G02/08 (SiNApSE) (SiNApSE) US: Pharmaceutical patent settlements – and what about patients? [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 5:05 am
(IP Osgoode) Australia: University of Western Australia’s application to appeal FCAFC’s decision in University of Western Australia v Gray fails (IP Whiteboard) Colombia/EU/Peru: Tough IP health provisions in Europe’s Colombia/Peru trade deal (IP Watch) (IP tango) EU: Something more about Swiss type claims: G02/08 (SiNApSE) (SiNApSE) US: Pharmaceutical patent settlements – and what about patients? [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 3:15 am
High Court (Queen’s Bench) Veolia Water Central Ltd v London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority [2010] EWHC 208 (QB) (09 February 2010) Moore v Hotelplan Ltd (t/a Inghams Travel) & Anor [2010] EWHC 276 (QB) (22 February 2010) Rutherford v Seymour Pierce Ltd [2010] EWHC 375 (QB) (11 February 2010) Law Society of England and Wales v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2010] EWHC 352 (QB) (26 February 2010) High Court (Chancery Division)… [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 3:50 am
The most perceptible change is the appearance of some more white spaces in his diary ...In July 2009 the IPKat reported on the German dispute, Rapidshare v Gema (see earlier post here), in which the Regional Court of Hamburg fined file-sharing site RapidShare AG 24 million Euro for copyright infringement in respect of 5,000 tracks which had been shared through the site. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 4:43 am
Manara explained the inception of the early litigation against eBay and Google as the high water mark of third party liability in France – Hermès v eBay, Dior v eBay, etc. [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 7:10 am
As an example of the usefulness of these, take the case of Abbott v. [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 6:22 am
The Enlarged Board held that this question should be answered in the affirmative provided that there was a new technical effect, see also UK decision Activis v Merck [2008] EWCA Civ. 444 and German decision X ZR 236/01 Carvedilol II, 19 December 2006. [read post]
