Search for: "State v. Arnold"
Results 721 - 740
of 1,498
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Mar 2015, 3:27 am
Arnold v Britton & Ors, heard 26 January 2015. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 4:09 am
According to the speaker, this right is potentially enforceable in the UK and also perhaps in some US states which provide similar rights. [read post]
7 Mar 2015, 8:58 am
Rob WeinerDuring the Supreme Court oral argument in King v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 2:43 pm
No muesli mix-up likely in the world where rabbits reignSupreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) Ltd [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch) is another blockbuster judgment from Mr Justice Arnold in the High Court, Chancery Division, England and Wales. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 1:00 am
Arnold v Britton & Ors, heard 26 January 2015. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 7:14 am
It is said that the law cannot keep pace with society, evolving about twenty years slower than the culture, but even the United States Supreme Court has caught on to the uniqueness of the modern “cell phone,” calling the devices “minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone” in a landmark case last year called Riley v. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 3:18 am
The case is Supreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) Ltd [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch), yet another blockbuster judgment from Mr Justice Arnold in the High Court, Chancery Division, for England and Wales. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 2:55 am
However, last week’s High Court, England and Wales, ruling in Enterprise v Europcar [2015] EWHC 300 (Ch) shows this is by no means a settled area, explains katfriend Jeremy Blum(Bristows LLP).* The Richemont ruling and beyond: dealing with counterfeit websites and the intermediaries that host themKatfriend Tim Behean provides another insightful analysis of Cartier International AG and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others [2014] EWHC 3354… [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 1:00 am
Arnold v Britton & Ors, heard 26 January 2015. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 6:19 am
Eric Segall of Georgia State University at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 2:30 am
Be that as it may, here's Tim's take on what Arnold J's decision has achieved, how they go about dealing with the same phenomenon in the United States -- and where we might go from here:Richemont v BskyB and others: a national solution to a global problem? [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 2:37 pm
The CJEU’s ruling in DHL v ChronopostThe CJEU made it manifestly clear in its 2011 ruling in Case C-235/09 DHL v Chronopost [see previous Katpost here] that a Europe-wide injunction should only be granted in order to ensure that the proprietor can protect his trade mark, prohibiting only uses which affect or are liable to affect the functions of the trade mark. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 1:39 pm
United States, according to Bloomberg News. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 3:02 pm
In Tiverton Bd. of License Comm’rs. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 5:15 am
The challenges, however, hit their own high water mark when the Supreme Court granted review in King v. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 4:13 am
Arnold v Britton & Ors, heard 26 January 2015. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 12:23 pm
In the Virginia case—titled Landini v. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 11:39 am
Then, in the wake of a lawsuit brought against then-Durham County prosecutor James Hardin, Jr., Simeon v. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 2:30 pm
On the same blog, IPKat team member Jeremy notes an extempore decision of Mr Justice Arnold on the difficult question of controlling uncapped costs in patent proceedings that are more easily afforded by one party than another, in Canon v Badger. [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 1:00 am
Arnold v Britton & Ors, heard 26 January 2015. [read post]
