Search for: "GMBH"
Results 801 - 820
of 2,545
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2018, 11:17 am
Sirona Dental Systems GMBH v. [read post]
17 Jun 2018, 9:27 pm
Eurohealth International Sarl 1-18-cv-00835; filed June 1, 2018 in the District Court of Delaware • Plaintiffs: Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC and Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH • Defendant: Eurohealth International Sarl Claim: Infringement of U.S. [read post]
17 Jun 2018, 9:00 pm
L'opposition avait formée par le cabinet S, et au stade du recours les sociétés Bose GmbH et Bose Limited étaient intervenues dans la procédure. [read post]
13 Jun 2018, 3:48 am
” Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 2:46 am
” Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 1:55 am
If no such relationship exists, protective labour law regulations cannot be applied (with a few exceptions e.g. in the case of managing directors of a “GmbH” (limited company)). [read post]
2 Jun 2018, 5:55 am
A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law More from our authors: Mediation: Creating Value in International Intellectual Property Disputes by Théophile Margellos, Sophia Bonne, Gordon Humphreys, Sven Stürmann € The post United Kingdom: Teva UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG, Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Civil Division, A3 2016 0271, 16 December… [read post]
22 May 2018, 7:53 pm
LABOklin GmbH, Senior District Judge Henry Coke Morgan, Jr. of the U.S. [read post]
16 May 2018, 7:15 am
LABOklin GmbH & Co. [read post]
12 May 2018, 6:20 am
Es handelte sich im konkreten Fall um eine in der Rechtsform der GmbH geführte kommunale Gesellschaft, wobei die Höhe der Beteiligung der Stadt am Stammkapital der Gesellschaft in den Entscheidungsgründen nicht mitgeteilt wird. [read post]
11 May 2018, 6:04 am
In opposition proceedings against the European patent in this case, the Division admitted an intervention on the basis that the patent proprietor had, in Germany, instituted independent evidentiary proceedings (BSV proceedings) against the intervener, whereby a court-appointed inspector is empowered to take evidence of possible infringement. [read post]
11 May 2018, 6:04 am
In opposition proceedings against the European patent in this case, the Division admitted an intervention on the basis that the patent proprietor had, in Germany, instituted independent evidentiary proceedings (BSV proceedings) against the intervener, whereby a court-appointed inspector is empowered to take evidence of possible infringement. [read post]
7 May 2018, 1:18 pm
Issued on April 19, the decision involved a legal dispute between the ad blocking software provider Eyeo GmbH and the online-content provider Axel Springer (which also happens to be Germany’s largest publishing house). [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 11:30 am
Frank Wijckmans explore Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH: Possibility in Selective Distribution System to Ban Sales via Third-Party Platforms. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 8:17 am
With decision C-395/16 DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH of 8 March, 2018, the European Union Court of Justice (“CJEU”) has now indicated that EUIPO’s approach is the correct one. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 9:39 am
The chosen startups are: ACTICELL GmbH Advonex International Checkerspot Modular Genetics, Inc. [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 12:04 pm
., and Oliver Treidler, Managing Director of TP&C GmbH. [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 1:16 am
The CJEU took on this question on a case decided only a few weeks ago.The case of DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH concerned the manufacture and sale of technical ceramic components by DOCERAM, in particular, weld centring pins for the automotive and textile industries. [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 1:16 am
The CJEU took on this question on a case decided only a few weeks ago.The case of DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH concerned the manufacture and sale of technical ceramic components by DOCERAM, in particular, weld centring pins for the automotive and textile industries. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 4:05 am
Kupplungbau GmbH v Lerner, 166 AD2d 505, 506-507 [1990]; see Pellati v Lite & Lite, 290 AD2d at 545). [read post]
