Search for: "C/T"
Results 5121 - 5140
of 50,083
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Sep 2019, 7:25 am
Here are a few odds and ends that merit Grits readers' attention:Lawsuit seeking Hep C treatment could come with BIG pricetagMore than 18,000 Texas prison inmates have been diagnosed with Hepatitis C - almost certainly an undercount since TDCJ does not do comprehensive testing - but only a tiny handful receive treatment. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 6:34 pm
[C]ounsel for Google represtented that David Rose paid $15,000 for his share of the AirMedia assets . . .[; C]ounsel for SimpleAir stated that . . . [read post]
10 Feb 2019, 4:35 pm
” Madam Justice Côté characterized S.A. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 5:01 am
Memo 2014-117, demonstrates why, sometimes, the tax law doesn’t provide a reset button. [read post]
30 Sep 2023, 8:04 am
The Board began by noting that 'distinctive character', for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR means that the mark applied for must 'serve to identify the goods or services for which registration is sought as originating from a particular undertaking and thus distinguishing the goods or services from those of other undertakings' (applying the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Torches, C-136/02, Das Prinzip der Bequemlichkeit… [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 9:35 am
| Plant variety in Case C‑242/14 | US Supreme Court on Spiderman patent | Hospira v Genentech saga | Are EU policy-makers fighting the right copyright battles? [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 4:13 am
The judge ruled that TufAmerica, didn’t have the exclusive rights to the two samples in question. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 8:15 am
There’s no right of attribution in the Copyright Act, but that didn’t matter. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 3:56 am
Consequently, the term 'greenworld' had an unambiguous significance: it indicated that the marked products helped to conserve the environment.The Court rejected the applicant's arguments that (i) the ambiguous adjective 'green' could also convey a non-descriptive meaning (see also Case C-191/01 P, DOUBLEMINT, para 32.) and (ii) Wikipedia did not contain information on any descriptive meaning of the term 'greenworld' (see also Case T-325/11,… [read post]
30 Oct 2022, 5:18 am
This approach was not, however, maintained in the Design Regulation as finally adopted.EUIPO and Easy Sanitary Solutions appealed to the CJEU (Joined Cases C-361/15 P and C-405/15 P). [read post]
3 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
It was found that the disclosure of the invention was of such a general nature that it deprived the skilled person of the information he/she needed to understand how to proceed from the first reaction value collected in step A through steps B, C and D to the determination on a probabilistic basis of the genotype of step E. [read post]
15 Jun 2014, 9:15 am
Doesn’t the claimant have the right to rely on the rebuttable presumption, asked Justice O’Donnell? [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 8:50 am
I for one can’t wait to find out. [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 4:48 am
The Appeal In a split decision written by Judge Eileen T. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 8:50 am
A properly crafted c. 93A letter sent when the insurance company is violating c. 93A and c. 176D, should help spur settlement discussions. [read post]
12 May 2013, 10:18 am
Yandex also categorically loses any 512(c) safe harbors for the period of time it didn't have a designated agent for service of notice, a step that didn't happen before 2012. [read post]
29 Sep 2009, 4:12 pm
[FN1] We also couldn't help wondering whether the S&C gays decided to give out chocolate in order to fatten up the competition. [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 8:57 am
Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited). [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 8:26 am
Prob C §140. [read post]
27 Jan 2015, 8:52 am
The court first rejects Square Ring’s ridiculous argument that live-streaming isn’t covered by 512(c)’s safe harbor because Congress didn’t contemplate live-streaming when it passed the law in 1998. [read post]
