Search for: "A----. B v. C----. D" Results 5641 - 5660 of 10,366
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Oct 2014, 5:46 am
" Failure to allow this evidence can result in reversible error, as the Court of Appeals of South Carolina held in State v. [read post]
24 Jan 2013, 1:13 am by NL
Mr L argued firstly that the judge below had failed to apply the test in Kennealy v Dunne [1977] 1 QBD 837 properly.The court is required to be satisfied that the premises are reasonably required, but on the authority of Kennealy v Dunne that reasonable requirement must be something more than a desire but less than a necessity. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 6:21 am
Section 3(I)(a)(b)(c) and (d) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 were all relied upon. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 2:37 am by Robert A. Epstein
The trial court found ex-husband “provided the [c]ourt with sufficient evidence of his health problems to show he ha[d] lost his life insurance and [was] unable to be gainfully employed. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 2:37 am by Robert A. Epstein
The trial court found ex-husband “provided the [c]ourt with sufficient evidence of his health problems to show he ha[d] lost his life insurance and [was] unable to be gainfully employed. [read post]
15 Sep 2021, 1:59 am by Afro Leo
The claim for passing off and Section 34(1)(b) and (c) are not dealt with in any detail and are abruptly dismissed as the Section 34(1)(a) claim was not successful, albeit that there are also obvious errors in this part of the judgement (for example at para 69 it states – “The test for passing off with regards to section 34(1)(c) is set out by the court in Laugh It Off Promotions”). [read post]