Search for: "State v. A. T. D."
Results 7641 - 7660
of 23,982
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2012, 9:14 am
Due to these concerns including the ones raised by the media (see here, here and here), INEC issued a press release which was also reported here and here, stating its own position on the judgment. [read post]
9 Jul 2020, 6:41 pm
On July 8th, in Fitbit, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2019, 4:00 am
Une personne morale peut souffrir d’une amende cruelle qui se manifeste par sa dureté, sa sévérité et une sorte d’hostilité[89]. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 11:49 pm
V. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 1:26 pm
Supp. 2d 557 (D. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 10:42 am
By Rebecca Tushnet and Eric Goldman TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2018, 12:31 pm
In Wimmer v. [read post]
10 Feb 2022, 11:54 am
In People of the State of California, et al. v. [read post]
30 Nov 2018, 4:09 am
Should the Munich Qualcomm v. [read post]
2 Jan 2008, 3:10 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Aug 2008, 12:46 am
"I'd rather not pick winners at this stage. [read post]
14 Nov 2022, 2:18 pm
" The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just held its Epic Games v. [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 4:33 am
For The Economist, Steven Mazie looks at Husted v. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 1:00 am
Dooneen Ltd (t/a McGuines Associates) & Anor v Mond (Scotland), heard 3 Jul 2018. [read post]
6 May 2014, 4:04 am
I insist he’d be Buddhist except that black is slimming. [read post]
29 Jun 2021, 9:01 pm
Today marks the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times Co. v. [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 11:35 am
Harking back to a time before fax, email, and before any of our intellectual property laws in the UK existed in their present form, when neither OHIM nor the EPO existed and WIPO was but a babe, he reminisced thus:WHERE ARE WE v WHERE I THOUGHT WE’D BE My first taste of IP came in 1973, when I found myself researching for a PhD on ownership of IP rights. [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 8:17 am
Since I can’t post a link to audio or video (and I had some time at the airport), I thought I’d instead take the opportunity to respond to Professor Gluck’s contribution to the recent SCOTUSBlog symposium on King v. [read post]
