Search for: "JULIAN v. US "
Results 41 - 60
of 721
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Aug 2010, 9:24 am
(Kenneth Anderson) Chief Conspirator Eugene mentioned the dismissal of the piracy case (US v Said) in US district court yesterday, along with some important initial commentary by piracy law expert (i.e., universal jurisdiction law expert) Eugene Kontorovich. [read post]
4 Feb 2018, 6:47 am
The judgment in ABC v Google Inc ([2018] EWHC 137 (QB)), handed down on 1 February 2018, provides some useful procedural reminders for individuals seeking to the Courts to enforce the “right to delist” (otherwise known as the “right to be forgotten”) against Google. [read post]
28 Jun 2008, 11:29 am
See Campbell v. [read post]
28 Jun 2008, 11:29 am
See Campbell v. [read post]
28 Jun 2008, 11:29 am
See Campbell v. [read post]
31 May 2016, 11:17 am
The Fourth Circuit concluded in US v. [read post]
10 Nov 2019, 4:00 am
While Justice Thomas has cast some doubt on this form of analysis in his opinion in Reed v. [read post]
3 Jul 2007, 5:47 am
The third edition of Merchandising Intellectual Property, by John Adams, Julian B. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 6:27 am
Chamber of Commerce v. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 9:01 pm
by Julian Ku OK, that is a little overdramatic. [read post]
22 Apr 2012, 8:20 pm
by Julian Ku One of the most popular arguments made against the Second Circuit’s interpretation of the Alien Tort Statute in Kiobel v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 6:32 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. [read post]
4 Jan 2021, 8:58 am
Related Cases: Bank Julius Baer & Co v. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 6:12 pm
by Julian Ku I am participating this week in a discussion on Kiobel v. [read post]
23 May 2021, 7:47 pm
In a case decided last month, Bulgarian Orthodox Old Calendar Church v. [read post]
4 Jul 2014, 8:05 am
Keitner, Jones v. [read post]
23 May 2015, 12:30 am
Over at New Books in History, it's Princeton week: Julian E. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 9:04 am
And more recently, in Paul v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 6:07 am
V. [read post]
12 Jul 2009, 9:54 pm
No, they're not -- but some are supplied by readers (quite a lot of the cat-pictures fit into this category), others are (i) definitely out of copyright, (ii) probably out of copyright, (iii) taken by the IPKat himself, (iv) dug up from Creative Commons or similar licensed sources or (v) used on the assumption that they fall within fair use/fair dealing/ transformative use or other defences of varying degrees of reliability. [read post]
