Search for: "FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. INNOVATIVE DESIGNS, INC."
Results 41 - 60
of 206
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 May 2018, 3:56 am
Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492, 503 (1988). [read post]
15 May 2018, 11:25 am
Federal Election Commission. [read post]
5 Apr 2018, 8:24 am
Similar to the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 5:00 am
Canadian businesses have and are innovating to bring exciting copyright content to Canadians. [read post]
15 Jan 2018, 4:00 am
In the recent case (Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:34 am
BMI filed an action in Federal Rate Court to set interim fees for radio stations represented by the radio industry's trade body the RMLC, while BMI and the RMLC negotiate the terms of a new five-year deal. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:19 pm
Petitioners then brought suit in Federal District Court against respondent publishers of The Nation, alleging, inter alia, violations of the Copyright Act (Act). [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 4:50 pm
Understanding the newfangled (and innovative) SEC jurisprudence of outsider trading must begin with a quick review of traditional notions of insider trading. [read post]
26 Sep 2017, 6:41 am
In some respects, that CAT marked a return to an older tax regime; in others, it reflected an innovation in state taxation; and in all respects, it represents an experiment which continues to the present day, simultaneously inspiring would-be imitators and informing cautionary tales. [read post]
22 Sep 2017, 7:18 am
The Commission claims that the defendants induced customers to invest in a pooled commodity fund that purported to employ a high-frequency, algorithmic trading strategy, executed by a computer trading program called “Jigsaw. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 9:26 am
Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34 underlined the breadth of courts’ jurisdiction to make orders against search engines to stem illegal activities on the Internet including the sale of products manufactured using trade secrets misappropriated from innovative companies. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 9:00 am
Harkening Back to Microsoft’s Monopoly Sending us back to the release of Microsoft 95, Judge Gorsuch’s opinion in Novell Inc., v. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 4:20 am
International Trade Commission, 616 F.3d 1318, 1328 (Fed. [read post]
17 Nov 2016, 4:18 am
Acknowledgment by AR designers of the inherent trade-off between collecting more data for better performance and doing so at the cost of privacy. [read post]
15 Sep 2016, 12:09 pm
Cir. 2010); see also Federal Trade Commission, Spotlight on Trade Associations (“Most trade association activities are procompetitive[.] [read post]
22 May 2016, 4:00 am
Roofdog Games Inc.: Who is the Author of Videogame Software for Copyright Purposes? [read post]
2 May 2016, 3:32 am
| Tourism and Culture in the Age of Innovation | Lord Neuberger's most difficult case | US Senate passes Trade Secrets Act Never too late 90 [week ending on Sunday 3 April] – Book review: "IP and Other Things" by Sir Robin Jacob| Book review: "Trade Marks Law" by Glen Gibbons| IPKat Post #10,00 | Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL and Others |Two Book Reviews:… [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 5:00 am
| Tourism and Culture in the Age of Innovation | Lord Neuberger's most difficult case | US Senate passes Trade Secrets Act Never too late 90 [week ending on Sunday 3 April] – Book review: "IP and Other Things" by Sir Robin Jacob| Book review: "Trade Marks Law" by Glen Gibbons| IPKat Post #10,00 | Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL and Others |Two Book Reviews:… [read post]
17 Apr 2016, 8:27 am
Yet as is the case in so many other areas, Canada ultimately caved on the issue and if we decide to ratify the TPP, will be required to change domestic law months after passing new rules specifically designed to provide enhanced border measures provisions. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 11:21 am
And 10,000 more are coming…* CJEU on taser, ahm, tacit prorogation of jurisdictionMark pens of Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL and Others (Case C-175/15), a decision where the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addressed the issue of whether Article 24 of Brussels I Regulation applies in cases where one party is domiciled in a non-EU Member State. * Two Book Reviews: European Law Design and The Changing European PatentDavid reviews… [read post]
