Search for: "v. AT&T Mobility"
Results 5121 - 5140
of 5,406
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Dec 2008, 7:48 am
The court correctly rejects this but doesn't cite precedent on this point, missing Doe v. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 12:01 pm
T-Mobile (UK) Ltd and Another v Office of Communications Court of Appeal “An appeal from a decision of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) concerning the award of wireless telegraphy licences lay by way of judicial review and not to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 10:48 am
T Mobile (UK) Ltd and another v Office of Communications [2008] EWCA Civ 1373; [2008] WLR (D) 391 “A challenge to a the decision of the Office of Communications (’Ofcom’) concerning the award of wireless telegraphy licences lay by way of a claim for judicial review and not an appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (’CAT’). [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 3:04 am
(The counterclaim alleged that AT&T Mobility, as successor to Cingular Wireless, violated state consumer protection law by charging Ms. [read post]
12 Dec 2008, 11:16 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Tankard v John Fredricks Plastics Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1375 (11 December 2008) Goodwin v Bennetts UK Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1374 (11 December 2008) T-Mobile (UK) Ltd. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 8:24 pm
I couldn’t get online to get a copy during the day. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 5:12 pm
Mobile and iPhone locking v. the DRMEvery three years the US Copyright Office reviews whether there is a need to provide further exceptions to the digital rights management provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 2:48 am
That case we were winning the argument and then at 14.20 the Judges mobile went off and she returned a different character. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 12:41 am
" (De Anza Santa Cruz Mobile Estates Homeowners Assn. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 5:47 am
Nowadays, when people post a badge on their social nework, the aggregate numbers could add up to a couple of hundred thousand accounts online v. a couple of hundred cars with bumper stickers, noted TechPresident Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Micah Sifry. [read post]
28 Nov 2008, 12:14 pm
You have come to the right place (IP Dragon) Court protects transliteration of well-known international enterprise name (International Law Office) How to go to China for innovation (China Law Blog) Costa Rica Costa Rica approves Free Trade Agreement between US, Central America and Dominican Republic (CAFTA) (IP tango) Europe EU judges on Community patent and court (IAM) (Managing Intellectual Property) European IP forum considers standards-setting (Managing Intellectual… [read post]
24 Nov 2008, 1:27 pm
Supreme Court in IBP Inc. v. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 1:36 pm
Don’t give up (International Law Office) Morocco Morocco hopes to benefit from Iranian technology expertise (Afro-IP) Netherlands Medical aid association Eers [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 2:42 pm
The case against Google for deceptive mobile phone ads will stay in federal court [read post]
15 Nov 2008, 9:10 am
Although the policy forms included a mobile equipment endorsement, it was blank and identified no ATVs or mobile equipment. [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 2:58 am
Sherer v. [read post]
4 Nov 2008, 10:07 am
Oh, if Sister Scholastica (not kidding) had caught us listening to that stuff, I don't think I would have gotten that CYO award at graduation later that year. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 12:26 pm
(Ars Technica) Judge rejects woman's request to jury trial, orders her to pay RIAA: Maverick v Harper (Techdirt) US publishers and Google settle copyright litigation over Google Book Search Library Project (The Trademark Blog) (Intellectual Property Watch) (EXCESS COPYRIGHT) (Law360) (Lessig Blog) (Michael Geist) (Out-Law) (EFF) (Public Knowledge) (Ars Technica) (Copyfight) (Techdirt) (Law360) (IPKat) (Laurence Kaye on Digital Media Law) Hoang v. [read post]
28 Oct 2008, 7:56 pm
In Trujillo v. [read post]
23 Oct 2008, 2:59 pm
The lenders should also consider holding off proceedings for possession where the borrower has made a claim to the FOS (although it does not need to do so in theory: Mobil Oil v Rawlinson (1981) 43 P&CR 221). [read post]
