Search for: "Givens v. Hill"
Results 441 - 460
of 2,070
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Nov 2019, 8:00 am
” Bank of America v. [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 5:00 am
” OS contended that the license was limited to the purposes disclosed at the time of contracting, namely, to cleanse garbage polygons/non-addressable sites from INSPIRE polygon data held by 77m. 77m argued that the license also covered the use it actually made of the data which included using the “link between the INSPIRE ID and address given in the A1 property description for addressable sites (my emphasis) as a way of specifying the geospatial coordinates of its own… [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 1:26 am
Kat friend Tyrone Berger reports on a recent case in Australia that addresses the ever-vexing quetion of when use amounts to trade mark use.In the recent decision of Pinnacle Runway Pty Ltd v Triangl Ltd, the Australian Federal Court has found that the name given to a style of bikini will not amount to 'use as a trademark' so as to consitute trade mark use. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 12:00 pm
The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins to Corey Robin in connection with Robin’s new book, “The Enigma of Clarence Thomas” (Metropolitan Books, 2019). [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 8:57 am
Westleigh Properties v 47 Park Hill (Carshalton) RTM: r.13 costs orders Westleigh Properties Ltd v 47 Park Hill (Carshalton) RTM Co Ltd [2019] UKUT 252 (LC) This was an RTM claim which ended up in a hearing. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 5:00 am
Alford and Brooks Foland of the Camp Hill, PA office of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin for bringing this case to my attention. [read post]
1 Nov 2019, 9:01 am
Priority would be given to faster speeds. [read post]
31 Oct 2019, 5:55 pm
Dow Jr. wrote in an Oct. 9 memo in Timber Hill LLC v. [read post]
30 Oct 2019, 1:24 am
The head of the Workers’ Compensation Department, Frank Petro, has received the highest rating (A/V) from Martindale-Hubbell, the world’s foremost authority on law firm credentials (the A/V rating is only for lawyers considered the top in their field). [read post]
16 Oct 2019, 3:00 am
Lisa Inman v. [read post]
15 Oct 2019, 9:01 pm
Nixon v. [read post]
14 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
The Supreme Court’s decision in Minnesota v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 9:11 am
In a 2017 concurring opinion in Hively v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 4:05 am
Forest Service v. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 9:44 am
Pascale v. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 9:44 am
Pascale v. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 4:39 am
Attorneys are given the benefit of the doubt in many “strategic” decisions. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 9:33 am
Priority would be given to faster speeds. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 4:02 am
First up is Kahler v. [read post]
6 Oct 2019, 9:53 am
See Gobitis v. [read post]
