Search for: "SPENCER v. SPENCER"
Results 821 - 840
of 1,276
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Oct 2011, 6:50 am
It also led to negotiations between Samuel Smith and Marks & Spencer which resulted in the settlement agreement, which prevents Marks & Spencer from selling Yorkshire Bitter under the old label. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 4:30 am
Arp, Note: New Jersey Carpenters vacation fund v. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 11:09 am
" -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 9:43 am
Arp, Note: New Jersey Carpenters vacation fund v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 10:48 am
Spencer v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 7:48 am
On Oct. 18, a unanimous panel, in Spencer v. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 12:43 pm
., et al. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 4:48 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Bloom & Ors v The Pensions Regulator & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1124 (14 October 2011) HM Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 1156 (14 October 2011) Estafnous v London & Leeds Business Centres Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1157 (14 October 2011) Williams & Anor v Hinton & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1123 (14 October 2011) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Stewart & Ors, R v [2011] EWCA… [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 1:51 pm
A prior S2KM blog post examines these three defense strategies in the context of the Spencer v. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 4:05 am
(See prior posting.)UPDATE: The Supreme Court on Monday also denied certiorari in Spencer v. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 4:36 pm
In People v Spencer (4th Dept 9/30/11) the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed a conviction and vacated a Superior Court Information (SCI) where the defendant pled guilty pursuant to a SCI after he was indicted for a crime arising from the same incident. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 4:36 pm
In People v Spencer (4th Dept 9/30/11) the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed a conviction and vacated a Superior Court Information (SCI) where the defendant pled guilty pursuant to a SCI after he was indicted for a crime arising from the same incident. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 1:48 am
: Case C-323/09 Interflora v Marks & Spencer (World Trademark Review) (Out-Law) (IPKat) (Class 46) Copyright protection should apply to functions of computer programs, software company claims in ECJ case: SAS v World Programming (Out-Law) How do you solve a problem like Orphan Works? [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 2:57 am
Interflora Inc and another v Marks & Spencer plc (Case C-323/09); [2011] WLR (D) 281 “Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC and article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark was to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark was entitled to prevent a competitor from advertising on the basis of a keyword which was identical with the trade mark and which had been selected in an internet referencing service… [read post]
25 Sep 2011, 7:54 am
People v. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 2:33 pm
As Justice Stewart said in Spencer v. [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 2:35 am
Pumpkin by Flowers by Walter As summer gives way to autumn and the golden leaves tumble, the prettiest flowers are those that come the florists -- which brings the IPKat on to today's decision in Case C-323/09 Interflora Inc and Interflora British Unit v Marks & Spencer plc and Flowers Direct Online Limited, a reference to the Court of the European Union (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 10:53 pm
In Business Roundtable v. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 5:02 pm
Reserved Judgments The following reserved judgments after public hearings remain outstanding: Ferdinand v MGN, heard 4 to 6 July 2011 (Nicol J) WXY v Gewanter, heard 11-15, 18-19 July 2011 (Slade J) Commissioner of Police v Times Newspapers, heard 18-20 & 22 July 2011 (Tugendhat J) Morrison v Buckinghamshire CC, heard 20 to 21 July (HHJ Parkes QC) [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 9:36 am
Geithner and Commonwealth of Virgina v. [read post]
