Search for: "HARMS v. HARMS" Results 4881 - 4900 of 36,766
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Nov 2009, 6:26 am
News reaches us here at NL of a decision of the High Court (Birmingham District Registry) by the name of Mehari, Kelly and JI v Birmingham City Council (9 and 10 November 2009) given by Hickenbottom J. [read post]
13 Aug 2015, 5:42 am
For an interesting recent case dealing with this question, see AFDI v. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 11:22 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
§ 319(d), adequately address possible harms of deregulation and benefits of environmental and historic-preservation review. [read post]
30 Apr 2022, 8:55 am by Eric Goldman
The judge relies on Section 230(c)(2)(A) rather than Section 230(c)(1) to wipe away the preempted claims: Section 230 precludes liability for removing content and preventing content from being posted that the platform finds would cause its users harm, such as misinformation regarding COVID-19. [read post]
Urban Decay will likely argue that “THE NAKEDS” has a confusingly similar trademark ( naked name) and a confusingly similar trade dress ( packaging the eye makeup with the word “NAKEDS” in capital letter) which harm the Naked brand. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 1:18 pm by Jack Goldsmith
”  Rather, after analyzing the costs and benefits of NSA v. private meta-date storage, Schneier concludes: Where does this leave us? [read post]
Furthermore, Wreal identified two consumers purpotedly confused by Amazon’s mark (Wreal, LLC v. [read post]