Search for: "State v. T. C." Results 501 - 520 of 17,248
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jun 2014, 4:00 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
David T Morrison and Co Limited t/a Gael Home Interiors v ICL Plastics Limited & Ors, heard7-9 April. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 2:17 am by Alyson Poole (AU)
The answer has recently been summarised in Viceroy Cayman Limited v Anthony Otto Syrowatka [2021] ATMO 159 (Viceroy v Syrowatka), stating “[i]t is well established that ownership of a trade mark is established either by authorship and prior use, or by the combination of authorship, the filing of the application and an intention to use or authorise use”. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 2:17 am by Alyson Poole (AU)
The answer has recently been summarised in Viceroy Cayman Limited v Anthony Otto Syrowatka [2021] ATMO 159 (Viceroy v Syrowatka), stating “[i]t is well established that ownership of a trade mark is established either by authorship and prior use, or by the combination of authorship, the filing of the application and an intention to use or authorise use”. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 1:58 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
David T Morrison and Co Limited t/a Gael Home Interiors v ICL Plastics Limited & Ors, heard7-9 April. [read post]
2 May 2022, 7:42 am by Venkat Balasubramani
The court says websites’ “publicly available sections lack limitations on access,” which implies that any effort that don’t create technical barriers to access (such as robots.txt and C&D letters) are irrelevant. [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 2:15 am
(copyright in portrait photographs)Case T- 336/03 Les Editions Albert René v OHIM, Orange A/S. [read post]
3 Nov 2020, 2:31 am by SHG
The last phrase of this rule was the part that gave Justice Sam Alito pause in his concurring opinion in Taylor v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 7:38 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
Pp. 1–3.SCALIA, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, IV, and V, in which ROBERTS, C. [read post]
17 Jun 2008, 8:29 pm
C.'S STATEMENTS, THE ARMY COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THE ERROR WAS NONETHELESS HARMLESS.United States v. [read post]