Search for: "State v. B. V." Results 4521 - 4540 of 41,756
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Mar 2022, 4:00 am by Administrator
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects) The most-consulted French-language decision was André-Bélisle c. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 3:44 am by Peter Mahler
Miami Beach v McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., 120 AD3d 1052, 1055; see World Ambulette Transp., Inc. v Lee, 161 AD3d 1028; Matter of Pokoik v 575 Realties, Inc., 143 AD3d 487). [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 2:17 am by Alyson Poole (AU)
The answer has recently been summarised in Viceroy Cayman Limited v Anthony Otto Syrowatka [2021] ATMO 159 (Viceroy v Syrowatka), stating “[i]t is well established that ownership of a trade mark is established either by authorship and prior use, or by the combination of authorship, the filing of the application and an intention to use or authorise use”. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 2:17 am by Alyson Poole (AU)
The answer has recently been summarised in Viceroy Cayman Limited v Anthony Otto Syrowatka [2021] ATMO 159 (Viceroy v Syrowatka), stating “[i]t is well established that ownership of a trade mark is established either by authorship and prior use, or by the combination of authorship, the filing of the application and an intention to use or authorise use”. [read post]
27 Mar 2022, 4:50 pm by INFORRM
  He dismissed the claim for state immunity brought by the former King of Spain. [read post]
27 Mar 2022, 10:52 am by Giles Peaker
If there is no break clause, this cannot be done. b) Forfeiture (or rather seeking a termination order in lieu of forfeiture). [read post]
26 Mar 2022, 8:26 am by Russell Knight
During the course of a custody battle, a parent may want to know their child’s exact mental state in order to argue that the child should spend more time with them and less time with the other parent. [read post]
25 Mar 2022, 5:35 pm by Andrew Hamm
§ 5845(b) is clear and unambiguous, and whether bump stocks meet that definition; (2) whether deference under Chevron v. [read post]
25 Mar 2022, 6:20 am by Riana Harvey
This was quickly dismissed by the Judge, stating that the Hearing Officer had properly concluded that there was a low degree of conceptual similarity and that no point of law was to be found there.Turning to the second Ground of appeal, it was submitted that the independency principle had not been applied properly as per Canon v MGM. [read post]