Search for: "He v. Holder"
Results 4561 - 4580
of 5,733
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Dec 2020, 7:48 am
He said: "Finally, the performers have their own voice, can negotiate their own deals, and get fair remuneration. [read post]
13 May 2015, 3:09 am
The AG OpinionIn his Opinion [not yet available in English, but summarised here] on 4 December 2014, Advocate General (AG) Cruz Villalón noted that the factual background here differed from the one at stake in Cassina [here, in which the CJEU held that "[t]he concept of distribution to the public, otherwise than through sale, ... applies only where there is a transfer of the ownership of that object. [read post]
28 Sep 2014, 4:51 am
In their definition: "[t]he words “caricature, parody or pastiche” have their ordinary dictionary meanings. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 10:41 am
Moreover, the proclamation’s applicability only to non-visa-holders outside the United States puts it in the sweet spot of judicial deference to the political branches, as the Supreme Court showed in the travel ban case. [read post]
26 Oct 2020, 7:38 am
That is actually an insultant to human intelligence: common sense says that patent holders will simply sue where they expect to get leverage. [read post]
22 Aug 2019, 1:30 am
Luckily the CJEU took this question on and handed down its judgment only a few weeks ago.The case of Spiegel Online GmbH v Volker Beck concerned a manuscript written by a German politician, Volker Beck. [read post]
11 Nov 2018, 1:25 am
In its 1993 Spectrum Sports v. [read post]
19 Jul 2013, 10:45 am
The Second Circuit's Decision in Rogers v. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 2:09 pm
Critics of the ITC have warned all along that this trade agency with quasijudicial powers is not going to reform itself and have urged lawmakers to require the ITC to apply a standard to import ban decisions that should be more (or fully) consistent with the eBay v. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 7:13 am
By Daniel RichardsonAyers v. [read post]
25 Feb 2020, 12:39 pm
Article 33 of the Chinese Trade mark Law provides that, If a holder of prior rights or an interested party holds that the trade mark application announced upon preliminary review is in violation of the second or third paragraph of Article 13(2) and (3), Article 15, Article 16(1), Article 30, Article 31, or Article 32 of this Law, he may, within three months from the date of the preliminary review announcement, raise objections to the CTMO. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 1:38 am
The Judge followed the reasoning of Lord Justice Kitchin (as then was) in Tulane v Comptroller ([2013] EWCA Civ 890), that the lump fees were “annual fees” as specified by Article 14. [read post]
26 May 2013, 8:31 pm
One of them even told me that he had standing instructions from his boss to not touch the case after that! [read post]
30 Jan 2020, 2:35 pm
In today’s decision in Generics (UK) v. [read post]
21 Apr 2014, 8:49 pm
At first sight it appeared to be a settlement, which surprised me because I had attended a Microsoft v. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 5:49 am
In Holder v. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 12:43 pm
For Judge Gilstrap in Texas, it would have been out of character to transfer or stay the case he was presiding over, so the only way to resolve the conflict was for the appeals court to speak out on it.Judge O'Malley is, at the philosophical level, one of the more right holder-friendly judges of the Federal Circuit--clearly more patentee-friendly than Chief Judge Sharon Prost, for example. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 10:32 pm
And for the FTC v. [read post]
4 Aug 2016, 7:50 am
When a teacher is excessed because of a BOCES program takeback, §3014-b(1) provides that " . . . each teacher employed in such a program by such a board of cooperative educational services at the time of such takeover by the school district shall be considered an employee of such school district, with the same tenure status he [or she] maintained in such board of cooperative educational services. [read post]
4 Apr 2023, 3:42 am
., In re S’holders Data Corp., 495 F.2d 1360, 181 USPQ 722, 723 (CCPA 1974) ("Although the Act does not define 'goods,' the definition of a 'trademark' in section 45 declares that it is used 'to identify goods' and section 2 refers to 'goods in commerce.'"). [read post]
