Search for: "Denis R. Barton"
Results 61 - 75
of 75
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2011, 11:20 am
Hendriks, Mehreen Faruqi.Harding, Ronnie.Annandale, NSW : Federation Press, 2009Environmental LawKF3775 .S26 2010Environmental law and policy / by James Salzman, Barton H. [read post]
28 May 2024, 11:38 am
On 21 May 2024, judgment was handed down in R (On the application of National Council for Civil Liberties) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1181 (Admin). [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 4:00 am
Might that majority of society who cannot afford a lawyer’s advice (“the problem”) soon use the social media to demand the abolition of law societies? [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 10:58 am
The PTO’s attention to failure to function as a mark is likely to intensify, in part because some of the former grounds for denying a registration are now unconstitutional. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
The other day, I was blogging about tags, and somebody asked what are all the tags. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 10:31 am
Ninth Trademark Scholars Roundtable: Distinctiveness, Secondary Meaning, Reputation And FameChicago-Kent College of LawSession 1: Distinctiveness (including Secondary Meaning) as a Legal ConceptIntroduction: Barton Beebe: different approaches. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 7:56 am
Sentencing remarks have been given in R -v- News Group Newspapers Limited. [read post]
26 Jul 2014, 5:03 pm
(Tonja R. [read post]
23 Apr 2011, 4:49 am
IIC is almost never cited any more and it’s almost never dispositive—empirically a red herring (similar conclusion to Barton Beebe’s w/r/t dilution). [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:03 am
Discussant: Barton Beebe Adidas v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 4:36 am
Ornamentality is denying it is used in a way that could cause confusion about source. [read post]
14 Feb 2010, 7:18 pm
District Judge Amul R. [read post]
24 Feb 2023, 1:27 pm
Barton Beebe: Intellectual movements—do they have any effect on TM law? [read post]
21 Jun 2008, 10:01 am
R. [read post]
14 Aug 2006, 11:06 am
It found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by: bypassing Communications Workers Local 1108 and dealing directly with employees by promising them promotions to managerial positions so they would no longer be part of the unit, and informing employees that their transfer requests were denied because they were shop stewards; urging employees to sign a petition to decertify the Union, and bypassing the Union and dealing directly with employees by promising them wage… [read post]
