Search for: "MATTER OF R B"
Results 581 - 600
of 14,568
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Sep 2022, 1:30 am
Nestle opposed all three applications on the grounds that: (i) the marks did not fulfil the requirements of a "sign" under section 1(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, challenged under section 3(1)(a) of the Act; and (ii) whether the marks had distinctiveness under section 3(1)(b) of the Act. [read post]
20 Sep 2022, 1:30 am
Nestle opposed all three applications on the grounds that: (i) the marks did not fulfil the requirements of a "sign" under section 1(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, challenged under section 3(1)(a) of the Act; and (ii) whether the marks had distinctiveness under section 3(1)(b) of the Act. [read post]
14 Sep 2022, 2:59 pm
R. 27-10(b)) the September 1 decision that provisionally sealed the briefs until the merits panel is assigned. [read post]
13 Sep 2022, 4:00 am
Incidentally, Reynal’s failures may have affected Jones’ legal interests beyond his liability for $50 million in this defamation matter; the inadvertently-disclosed texts have reportedly been handed over to the congressional committee investigating the attempted insurrection on January 6, 2021, in which Jones was a “central player”. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 11:06 am
” The court chose not to analyze Prongs A and B because Prong C was not satisfied and the failure to satisfy any prong dooms any company from establishing independent contractor status because the ABC test requires that all three prongs must be proven. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 10:52 am
I then turn to subject matter jurisdiction and the personal jurisdiction arguments raised by certain Defendants. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 7:57 am
The Court of Appeals did find error when the trial court ordered Defendant A to enroll and complete co-parenting classes while the appeal in this matter was pending. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 5:35 am
A few states, for instance—including New York, where Fox is headquartered—require a showing of "actual malice" for all statements of public concern, including statements about private figures.[2] Most other states allow recovery of proven compensatory damages for libel based on a showing of mere negligence.[3] Presumably Fox would want to avoid even negligent mistakes, just as a matter of editorial policy. [read post]
4 Sep 2022, 4:30 pm
R. 104(b) This “file everything” policy does NOT apply to discovery. [read post]
2 Sep 2022, 4:43 am
In the judicial review case of R (Calver) v Adjudication Panel for Wales and another, for example, Bateson J pointed out that the ‘fact-sensitive approach means that there is no rigid typology’ for determining freedom of expression in the public interest [57]. [read post]
1 Sep 2022, 4:00 am
Hence, the Model Code provides that “a lawyer must not act against a former client in the same matter” (R 3.4-10(a)). [read post]
31 Aug 2022, 6:38 pm
R. 104(b) No notice means the motion, oral or written, should be denied. [read post]
31 Aug 2022, 7:46 am
427-468 (available here) Balbi, Francesca “La circolazione delle decisioni a livello globale: il rogetto di convenzione della Conferenza dell’Aia per il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle sentenze straniere” (Tesi di dottorato, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, 2019; available: here) Beaumont, Paul “Forum non Conveniens and the EU rules on Conflicts of Jurisdiction: A Possible Global Solution”, Revue Critique de Droit International… [read post]
28 Aug 2022, 6:29 am
B. [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 10:43 am
Even as a matter of English, the word “exceptional” does not appear to add a great deal to “compelling”. [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 7:08 am
Indeed, a study by David Taylor has shown that Supreme Court limitations on patentable subject matter, including Myriad, have decreased investment in R&D, particularly in biotechnology. [read post]
25 Aug 2022, 1:35 pm
Perhaps more curious than Schauer’s error is his citation support for his disclaimer.[2] The cited paper by Jonah B. [read post]
25 Aug 2022, 4:22 am
R. [read post]
24 Aug 2022, 3:10 am
BSF and B&K allegedly engaged in duplicate billing whereby attorneys discussing the matter in person or by telephone or email billed separately for their time and billed for different amounts of time spent at the same meeting (id., ,r,r 76-77, 185-186, 396 and 399- 400). [read post]
