Search for: "Empire v. Commercial" Results 501 - 520 of 752
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Jun 2024, 12:39 am by centerforartlaw
Suggested Readings Milton Esterow, The Battle for Picasso’s Multi-Billion-Dollar Empire Vanity Fair (2016) Frida Kahlo Corp. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 12:39 am by centerforartlaw
Suggested Readings Milton Esterow, The Battle for Picasso’s Multi-Billion-Dollar Empire Vanity Fair (2016) Frida Kahlo Corp. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2014, 1:45 am
"Wim van der Eijk observing howmuch the EPO empire has grownIPKat readers will note that Mr Justice Arnold has followed suit in his recent referrals, the Actavis v Sanofi judgment being one such instance. [read post]
9 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm by Josh Blackman
Here the article invoked the same reasoning used by Chief Justice Marshall in United States v. [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 5:01 am by Shouvik Kumar Guha
For the small time photocopy shops like the one in the present controversy, which are licensed by universities and which IRRO dubs as a commercial entity, a stupendous a fee starting from Rs 3 lakh per annum or 40% of the annual turnover, has been claimed by IRRO. [read post]
20 May 2014, 6:29 pm
Simultaneously, however, the law of commercial transactions made of the slave’s body an un-situated commodity, implicitly priced in the Liverpool trading market that set a going price of cotton and other slave-produced commodities and intensified the demand on the slave’s body for rapid production of commodities.The struggle of the law to reconcile the claimed moral underpinnings of slavery with the concept of property, within a partly feudal society, existed alongside the full… [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 2:39 am by SHG
This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 3:29 am by Peter Mahler
Last October I wrote about Zelouf Int’l Corp. v Zelouf, an important post-trial decision in which, among other significant rulings, Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich refused to apply a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM) in a statutory fair value proceeding triggered by a freeze-out merger of a family-owned business. [read post]