Search for: "Figures v. Figures"
Results 6161 - 6180
of 15,521
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 May 2016, 7:43 am
Copyright Office, 1201 Roundtable, DCJames Madison Building, Mumford RoomNB: I won’t be here tomorrow because the Office had the temerity to schedule the roundtables after I committed to a different exiting roundtable, this one at Notre Dame on deception. [read post]
19 May 2016, 7:34 am
As I mentioned before, courts can’t figure out how to deal with the nominative use doctrine. [read post]
19 May 2016, 6:37 am
I accept that the figurative marks cannot be used in this manner but they still have certain, admittedly very limited, vestigial uses, which the Regulations do not curtail. [read post]
19 May 2016, 3:22 am
We learnt back in the “Super-injunction Spring” of 2011 when many celebrities and public figures were outed as having obtained anonymous injunctions, that there is little point in trying to remain anonymous if the Claimant is newsworthy. [read post]
18 May 2016, 4:18 pm
Up, Inc. v. [read post]
18 May 2016, 1:30 pm
Queior v. [read post]
18 May 2016, 11:00 am
For example, in Erwin v. [read post]
18 May 2016, 9:57 am
Most recently, HHJ Pelling decided in Jack Wills v House of Fraser that, on an account of profits assessment, it will in many cases be appropriate for an infringer to be able to deduct certain overheads from its net profit figure, as well as apply an apportionment of profits which relate specifically to the infringement. [read post]
18 May 2016, 4:09 am
(You can read the history of it all in Grant v. [read post]
17 May 2016, 3:34 pm
Although sometimes this secondary evidence can win a case, i.e. by telling the invention story of how the inventor toiled away in the dark (figuratively) before arriving at the invention (see Schlumberger v EMGS [2010] EWCA 819), it is often a "costly distraction". [read post]
17 May 2016, 7:32 am
, I finally figured out what was going on with banner ads on my Internet browsing. [read post]
17 May 2016, 7:08 am
He then sought $113,586 in attorneys’ fees, but the court reduced that figure to $76,318. [read post]
16 May 2016, 3:18 pm
Alphonsus Medical Center v. [read post]
16 May 2016, 12:04 pm
By amazing luck, the Court didn’t have to address either of these issues in Burwell v. [read post]
16 May 2016, 11:55 am
See Figure 2. [read post]
16 May 2016, 5:57 am
Co. v. [read post]
16 May 2016, 5:57 am
Co. v. [read post]
15 May 2016, 4:20 pm
The Cumbria-based North West Evening Mail has used the Freedom of Information Act to reveal the true figure. [read post]
14 May 2016, 7:40 am
Word on the street is that Korematsu v. [read post]
