Search for: "State v. Arnold"
Results 661 - 680
of 1,498
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jul 2015, 5:58 am
State v. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 2:07 am
Whatever your feelings about the doctrine of initial interest confusion [Mr Justice Arnold was in favour here and here; "no, no, no" said the Court of Appeal for England and Wales], it's a fascinating doctrine that is of great potential value to trade mark-owning litigants in the United States, where it is still alive and kicking. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 12:36 pm
| 3-D Lego trade mark | Garcia v Google | B+ subgroup | EU trade mark reform and counterfeits in transit | French v Battistelli | US v Canada over piracy | UK Supreme Court in Starbucks | BASCA v The Secretary of State for Business | Patent litigation, music, politics | Product placement in Japan.Never too late 50 [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 8:25 am
This was a bill that was vetoed by then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 2:51 pm
”Contrary to the content and tone of Nunez’s letter, the probation report states Nunez lied when first contacted by police, was “never cooperative,” and after his arrest and release sent a text message to a codefendant stating, 'Gangster rap made us do it lol.'"Dude. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 9:36 am
In the brand-new Court of Appeal decision just out - Actavis UK Ltd & Others v Eli Lilly & Company [2015] EWCA Civ 555 (25 June 2015), Lord Justice Floyd (Lords Justices Kitchin and Longmore concurring) disagreed with Arnold J on two main issues. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 9:28 am
Fictional memory, imaginary state of mind, imagined shopping experience—and then we complain that we don’t have ecologically valid evidence! [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 6:58 am
Arnold v. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:30 am
Floyd LJ has roundly rejected Arnold J's reasoning, stating:58.The difficulty I feel with endorsing this reasoning is as follows. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 9:30 pm
Wainwright (and featuring Judge Morris Arnold). [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 7:49 am
Arnold that an explanation of reasons must be included in a Rule 137 order whether or not sanctions are imposed. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 2:20 am
In the present case, Neuberger stated that the reasonable reader of clause 3(2) would see the first half of the clause as descriptive and the second half as a qualification of the service charge. [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 8:32 am
That was until 1977, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Bates v. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 12:22 am
Bear with me dear reader, as I recognise the gravity of disgreeing with all of Floyd LJ, Ryder LJ, Arden LJ and Arnold J.But not everyonedoes ...The problem this Kat has is that they all rely on the subjective state of the infringer, whether it is subjective intent, or knowledge, even if the knowledge is constructive knowledge. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 7:31 am
Arnold v Britton & Ors, heard 26 January 2015. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 6:08 am
Even knowing falsehoods about large groups likely protected, too: Given United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 9:29 am
” Seasoned attorneys—or those who were practicing law before the United States Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Bates v. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 2:12 pm
Arnold of Garvey, Schubert & Barer. [read post]
31 May 2015, 3:47 am
’To avoid infringement of the Swiss claim no onewas told which drug was being manufacturedIn January in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat) Mr Justice Arnold said the Swiss style claim requires the infringer to ‘subjectively intend’ that the medicament will be used for the relevant condition. [read post]
29 May 2015, 4:03 pm
Horowitz v. [read post]
