Search for: "United States v. Arnold"
Results 481 - 500
of 596
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Nov 2009, 9:36 am
Interflora British Unit v Marks and Spencer PLC Flowers Direct Online Limited [2009] EWHC 1095 (Ch), Mr Justice Arnold (High Court, England and Wales) felt it appropriate to refer a number of questions to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the legality of the purchase and use of words including a third party's trade mark as a keyword (see earlier IPKat post here). [read post]
7 Nov 2007, 7:43 am
This guide is a portion of United Cerebral Palsy's One-Stop Resource Guide. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 1:43 am
The decision clarifies that a technical effect may be plausible without requiring the provision of tests or data; this is precisely the opposite of what was decided by Judge Arnold in the United Kingdom. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 1:02 am
Reserved Judgments Harcombe v Associated Newspapers, heard 3 to 7 and 10 to 11 July 2023 (Nicklin J) Smith v Backhouse, heard on 11 July 2023 (Asplin, Arnold and [read post]
17 Feb 2019, 4:06 pm
ICO The ICO blog has a post by Deputy Chief Executive Paul Arnold explaining to small businesses why they need to pay the data protection fee. [read post]
15 Oct 2007, 9:55 am
Review of Robert Wood's article "Factor v. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
Neither, says the judge in patent and trade mark case Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK; Schutz UK Ltd, Schutz GmbH & Co KgAA v Delta Containers Ltd (PatLit) EWHC: RIM v Visto: Mr Justice Arnold takes charge (PatLit) Banking brand values plummet (IAM) United States US General Judd Gregg to be nominated as Secretary of Commerce (Inventive Step) (IP Watchdog) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patently-O) (Chicago… [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 6:55 am
The Judge (Arnold J) applied the reasoning of the CJEU in GAT v LuK and Solvay v Honeywell, holding that the claim advanced by the patentee was “concerned with” the validity of the German patent for the purposes of Article 24(4) of the Recast Brussels I Regulation, or at least “principally concerned with” that validity under Article 27 of the Regulation, and therefore the English court had no jurisdiction. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 3:35 am
United States resurrected the debate over the future of the exclusionary rule in American criminal procedur... 02/23/2011 | Reasonable Remedies and (or?) [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 2:12 pm
Arnold of Garvey, Schubert & Barer. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 12:42 pm
” (United States v. [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 1:54 am
On 21 July 2022 the Court of Appeal (Arnold, Dingemans and Warby LJJ) heard the defendant’s appeal in the case of Riley v Murray against the judgment of Nicklin J dated 20 December 2021 ([2021] EWHC 3437 (QB)) in which damages of £10,000 were awarded to the claimant. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 2:07 am
Whatever your feelings about the doctrine of initial interest confusion [Mr Justice Arnold was in favour here and here; "no, no, no" said the Court of Appeal for England and Wales], it's a fascinating doctrine that is of great potential value to trade mark-owning litigants in the United States, where it is still alive and kicking. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 12:11 pm
On the same day, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Mueen-Uddin v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1073, dismissing by a majority the appeal from the decision of Nicol J, which struck out the Appellant’s claims in libel and data protection as abuse. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 2:50 am
In case you're wondering why this topic has been chosen, it has been quite controversial in the United States and, in a recent judgment in Och-Ziff, Mr Justice Arnold considered that it was actually part of both EU and United Kingdom trade mark law. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 12:35 pm
The RecordTV v MediaCorp TV Singapore (2010) case was cited. [read post]
21 Jul 2019, 4:03 pm
United States Google is expected to pay a multimillion dollar penalty from the Federal Trade Commission over its handling of kids’ information on its popular video site YouTube. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 6:12 am
Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67[2002] ). [read post]
25 Feb 2007, 11:57 pm
Supreme Court's recent 5-4 ruling in Philip Morris USA v. [read post]
15 Aug 2019, 11:24 pm
The first loan states:I acknowledge that the requested loan is subject to the limitations on dischargeability in bankruptcy contained in Section 523(a)(8) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. [read post]
