Search for: "STARKS v. THE STATE" Results 781 - 800 of 1,625
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
The Software and Information Industry Association, arguing that “the Copyright Act contains the flexibility to deal with unforeseen applications of section 602″, says: In the same way that Congress did not intend to cabin section 602’s application to copies from countries with a shorter term or compulsory licenses, the legislative record provides no evidence that it intended its application to situations where a trademark owner adds a copyrightable insignia or label on goods… [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
, says: In the same way that Congress did not intend to cabin section 602’s application to copies from countries with a shorter term or compulsory licenses, the legislative record provides no evidence that it intended its application to situations where a trademark owner adds a copyrightable insignia or label on goods to protect against their parallel importation into the United States. [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 9:03 pm by Lyle Denniston
., the Court will hear a state case, Riley v. [read post]
13 Feb 2011, 9:00 pm by Sinead Ring
Last month the Supreme Court delivered judgment in  AP v DPP [2011] IESC 2, which concerned an appeal against the High Court’s refusal to grant an order prohibiting a fourth trial of the applicant. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 12:02 pm by NL
Mr Stark also considered that there might be circumstances in which a third party could be cross-examined by the applicant or the applicant's representative. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 12:02 pm by NL
Mr Stark also considered that there might be circumstances in which a third party could be cross-examined by the applicant or the applicant's representative. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 9:52 am by INFORRM
It states, ‘the reports will use [the Claimant’s] case as a stark illustration of these issues‘. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 11:35 am by Adam Feldman
Township of Scott, which overturned the court’s precedent on the issue of eminent domain in the state law context in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. [read post]