Search for: "T-UP v. Consumer Protection"
Results 4741 - 4760
of 4,767
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jan 2007, 9:16 am
[IPKat comment - more explicit acknowledgment than in Arsenal v Reed ECJ that a trade mark has functions other than the origin function]BMW and referential use*The scenario in BMW v Deenik, where use on services which were different to the goods for which the mark was registered and yet Art.5(1)(a) infringement was found was limited to situations in which the defendant is using the trade mark to identify the subject-matter of the services. [read post]
25 Jan 2007, 12:48 am
Thus it protects consumers of prescription medical products from personal injury, and since the Act covers both warnings and design it's equally easy to say that the "particular hazard" causing injury is within the statute's scope as well.Right? [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 4:02 pm
In Capital v. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 9:53 am
I can’t afford to tell my Clients to only use the HER web site when many of the best homes for sale are not even showing up. [read post]
16 Jan 2007, 11:50 am
He noted six trends (1) we are moving from one-way communications to two-way communications, (2) interactive communications v. reactive communications, (3) broadcasting v. narrowcasting and the rise of the Long Tail, (4) linear communications v. non-linear communications, and disintermediation v. reintermediation. [read post]
14 Jan 2007, 11:01 pm
Keep in mind that doesn't just show up in conviction rates; cases in which guilt is questionable almost always end up in much better plea bargains, and thus shorter sentences. [read post]
9 Jan 2007, 2:49 pm
"Programs such as UP's help protect a company's brand, but the railroad didn't need protection from the model industry, he said. [read post]
22 Dec 2006, 6:00 am
It also contravenes the CLRA's statutorily-declared consumer protection purpose by curtailing the CLRA's scope. [read post]
14 Dec 2006, 5:02 am
One is, alas, only in French and Italian: it's Case T-392/04 Gagliardi v OHIM, Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb. [read post]
12 Dec 2006, 2:02 am
Merpel says, I don't recall the Gowers Review suggesting any practical ways of tidying up passing off, which is one of the messiest and most expensive ways of protecting intellectual property. [read post]
11 Dec 2006, 3:18 pm
Trust me, you don't want to know…Secondly, a lengthy follow up to something I wrote last week about some of the critical mail my friend Randy Cohen was getting based on his column in the Ethicist about 10 days ago. [read post]
10 Dec 2006, 8:20 am
Jane Ginsburg: Picking up on the Hobbs remarks, we don't know what we mean by dilution. [read post]
6 Dec 2006, 6:00 am
Justice Corrigan asked if they had given up the right to privacy. [read post]
3 Dec 2006, 7:53 pm
And consumers are a class the Sherman Act is designed to protect. [read post]
30 Nov 2006, 8:46 am
The DOJ further alleges that the working group that crafted the policy was well aware of the anticompetitive effects it would have on consumers. [read post]
29 Nov 2006, 11:47 am
* Simmons v. [read post]
28 Nov 2006, 9:57 am
The many companies and industries that make up the Coalition for Patent Fairness agree. [read post]
21 Nov 2006, 11:25 am
The acoustics of the marketplace will ultimately catch up to them. [read post]
11 Nov 2006, 2:59 pm
Registry v. [read post]
10 Nov 2006, 1:29 pm
The acoustics of the marketplace will ultimately catch up to them. [read post]
