Search for: "Does 1 - 41"
Results 481 - 500
of 4,676
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Apr 2012, 6:00 am
Eller & Co., 41 Ben. [read post]
13 Aug 2008, 12:00 am
I wrote about this issue in "Ethical Ends and Ethical Means," 41 Jour. [read post]
13 Mar 2008, 7:29 pm
The case was one of first impression that clarified that the New Jersey Domestic Partnership Act allows a court to follow the same principles of asset distribution when terminating a domestic partnership as it does when granting a divorce to a married couple. [read post]
12 Jun 2007, 4:46 am
On the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole, which does not mean that the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark may not, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components (see order in Matratzen Concord v OHIM, paragraph 32; Medion, paragraph 29).42 As the Advocate General pointed out ..., it is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of… [read post]
4 May 2011, 2:19 pm
The Commissioner declined to investigate the complaint under section 41(1)(a) of the Privacy Act, on the basis that the actions of the law firm did not constitute an interference with the complainant’s privacy, as defined in the Act. [read post]
8 May 2013, 7:00 am
MIP filed a notice of opposition ex Article 42 of Regulation 40/94 (Article 41 CTMR), relying on Article 8(1)(b) of the same Regulation. macros consult GmbH, on the other hand, submitted an application for a declaration of invalidity of MIP's figurative sign, under Articles 52(1)(c) and 55 of Regulation 40/94 (Articles 53(1)(c) and 56 CTMR). [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 4:54 pm
In Order 41, ALJ Rogers denied HP’s motion for summary determination on infringement, importation and domestic industry. [read post]
5 Jan 2016, 12:41 am
The existence of multiple versions or adaptions does not affect the fact that ‘Le Journal d’Anne Frank’ is the unique and distinctive title of a specific book. [read post]
1 Jul 2024, 12:05 am
IPSO 21812-23 Vulliamy v Daily Mail, 1 Accuracy (2021), No breach – after investigation 21746-23 Austin v The Metro, 1 Accuracy (2021), No breach – after investigation 00016-24 Janner v The Times, 1 Accuracy (2021), 4 Intrusion into grief or shock (2021), Breach – sanction: action as offered by publication Statements in Open Court and Apologies We are not aware of any statements in open court or apologies from the last week. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 2:25 pm
Leuthold does not refer to this authority and instead relies on paragraph 2.4(1)(c) of the Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. [read post]
28 Jan 2021, 6:35 am
Hogan sued Magnolia, and, not knowing the name of the employee, “John Doe. [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 2:45 am
The first examiner indicated that in his opinion claim 1 now on file suffers from the same deficiency as claim 1 as originally filed. [read post]
7 Jul 2017, 8:35 am
Only five of the 41 Fortune 500 companies in the technology sector have a woman CEO. [read post]
17 Oct 2006, 5:36 am
A: No, not really, we do not think these are so urgent. 9:58 Q: Does standard office equipment fall under the carve-out for free flow of information in Syria? [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 4:00 am
Call 1-800-533-3555 for a free consultation today. [read post]
18 Nov 2007, 8:50 am
Such evidentiary and safety concerns are not articulable from the totality of the circumstances in the instant case, particularly considering that: 1. [read post]
24 Feb 2007, 10:37 am
Ct. 2464, 41 L. [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 2:43 am
It's not droit to a suite ...Article 1(4) further states that:"The royalty shall be payable by the seller. [read post]
30 Mar 2017, 9:21 am
Nonetheless, it does serve as a reminder that when a party recognizes an omission or mistake in an instrument affecting mineral rights, a party should not immediately opt for an easy fix via a notarial act of correction. [read post]
27 Nov 2018, 9:37 am
Earlier this month, the Court ruled that: (1) a party must “prevail” before it can recover any attorney’s fees under the DTSA and (2) a plaintiff’s dismissal of its claims without prejudice does not confer the “prevailing party” status on defendants. [read post]
