Search for: "See v. See"
Results 7161 - 7180
of 122,002
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Mar 2023, 3:59 am
See In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300, 1302, 91 U.S.P.Q.2d 1532, 1533-34 (Fed. [read post]
9 Mar 2023, 3:00 am
See Cumulus Invs., LLC v. [read post]
9 Mar 2023, 12:15 am
The case deals with the topic of whether the registration of slogans is allowed by EU trade mark law.Katfriend Paolo Maria Gangi reviewed the decision of the Southern District Court of New York, issued on 14 February 2023, seeing the French Luxury House Hermès against NFT creator Rothschild.Katfriends Gillian Tan and Mark Teng discussed a recent decision issued by the Court of Appeal of Singapore clarifying the meaning and application of Singapore's judicial understanding of… [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 6:31 pm
See, In re Marriage of Earlywine (2013). [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 4:33 pm
The success of Google’s appeal in Lloyd v Google and the decision in Warren v DSG Retail (see our post here) seems to have halted 2021’s flow of data breach claims. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 4:06 pm
” (Georgetown Preservation Society v. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 2:51 pm
See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 11:50 am
As most of the underlying legal issues in AHM v. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 11:37 am
Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. v. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 9:51 am
Editor’s Note: This is part two in a multi-part series on foreign intelligence surveillance reform. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 8:48 am
We’ve written before about how the Court might and should rule in Gonzalez (see here and here), but less attention has been devoted to the other Section 230 case on the docket: Twitter v. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 4:00 am
In Pelech v Pelech, [1984] CanLII 629 (BC SC), Mrs. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 4:00 am
Bruen is quite simply a national nightmare.In United States v. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 3:13 am
The evidence submitted in support of their motion failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the parties had agreed upon a flat fee arrangement as contended by Golub and the Golub companies (see 2978 Gas Corp. v United Fleet, Inc., 197 AD3d 1138, 1139 [2021]; see generally Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482 [1989]). [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 3:07 am
For the Judgment, please see: Judgment (PDF) Judgment on The National Archives (HTML version) Judgment on BAILII (HTML version) For the Press Summary, please see: Press summary (HTML version) To watch the hearing, please see: 4 Oct 2022 Morning session Afternoon session [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 12:17 am
They suggested that a court should consider whether: (i) the individual’s conduct would make them liable as an accessory irrespective of their status as a director; and then (ii) whether the fact that the individual is a director gives them a defence (see further MCA Records Inc v Charly [2001] EWCA Civ 1441, [2002] FSR 26 for details of possible such defences). [read post]
7 Mar 2023, 11:15 pm
” Similarly, see Wiseman v. [read post]
7 Mar 2023, 3:03 pm
From U.S. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2023, 2:33 pm
That is hardly enough to guarantee that it will become law, given how many thousands of bills are filed in legislatures and Congress every year that never see the light of day. [read post]
