Search for: "HARMON v. HARMON"
Results 661 - 680
of 1,667
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Aug 2023, 5:20 am
It is worth recalling that this is not a court on the merits: its task is to ensure the correct interpretation and application of legislative provisions by lower courts.Of all the grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court, the most intriguing one is that concerning the application of relevant provisions in the Italian Copyright Act concerning moral rights.Moral rights under Italian law and the issue before the Supreme CourtMoral rights are not harmonized at the EU level. [read post]
18 Feb 2019, 7:43 am
There are actually rules in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule that would lead you to that conclusion. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 1:47 pm
There’s a caricature of US v. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 9:56 am
The Explanatory Notes the Harmonized System, which are not binding on U.S. [read post]
3 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
As a general rule, a party does not have a right to appeal a court's interlocutory order or an interlocutory decision. *** See Matter of Carver v State of New York, 26 NY3d 272The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_03870.htm [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 4:00 am
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, noting that "[i]t is fundamental that a court, in interpreting a statute, should attempt to effectuate the intent of the Legislature," citing Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y. v City of New York, 41 NY2d 205.The Appellate Division opined that the plain language of the amendment and its legislative history establish that the amendment was intended, as relevant to Plaintiff, to permit certain… [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 4:34 pm
For the most part, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States has an internal logic and consistent format that eases navigation. [read post]
20 Sep 2015, 11:28 pm
In this way, the court made clear that the reliance criterion is not a requirement which is relevant under harmonized trade mark law. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 12:13 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 10:59 am
But I am aware of only one case that suggests that TRIPS might be relevant for interpreting U.S. substantive law: in Rotec Industries, Inc. v. [read post]
25 May 2021, 3:32 pm
General Note 3 to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule does not often come up. [read post]
28 Jan 2018, 11:57 am
The National Intellectual Property Office, Hungary("the Office") communicated to Incyte the grant of the SPC on 7 October 2014, with a notice that an appeal to the administrative decision could be filed to the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary) within 30 days of the communication of the decision. [read post]
11 Sep 2014, 1:22 pm
Like the court in GRK, Customs and Border Protection looked back to an old case call United States v. [read post]
26 May 2016, 7:23 pm
You can read all about that here, in the Brooklyn Journal of International Law.Along comes Chemtall, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2019, 4:00 am
As a general rule, a party does not have a right to appeal a court's interlocutory order or an interlocutory decision. *** See Matter of Carver v State of New York, 26 NY3d 272The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_03870.htm [read post]
15 Aug 2018, 7:11 am
Regarding proposed Reg BI, SIFMA recommended that the definition of “retail customer” be harmonized with FINRA’s definition because the definition as proposed would result in inconsistent and redundant compliance structures.SIFMA also urged the SEC to incorporate the “reasonable investor” definition of materiality set forth in Basic v. [read post]
22 Oct 2015, 10:57 am
I get that if the Harmonized System Committee changes the law, Customs will implement the change. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 3:04 am
The latter approach has its origin in a 1971 decision from the UK courts which referred to former English law (Amp Incorporated v. [read post]
13 Sep 2021, 12:48 pm
Saint Consulting Group, Inc., 772 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014); Anani v. [read post]
13 Sep 2021, 12:48 pm
Saint Consulting Group, Inc., 772 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014); Anani v. [read post]
