Search for: "CONVERSE v CONVERSE" Results 8541 - 8560 of 15,439
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Aug 2013, 7:00 am by Spencer L. Reames
 This rule has its genesis in the Court of Appeals decision of Riggs v Palmer, in which the Court stated “[n]o one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime” (Riggs v Palmer, 115 NY 506, 511 [1889]). [read post]
4 Apr 2017, 1:55 am
India has become a center for this conversation. [read post]
2 Dec 2012, 8:41 pm
 At least since the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Gonzales v. [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 12:02 pm
This final remark ended the panel discussion and opened a drinks reception where conversations continued fuelled by the ideas presented by the panel. [read post]
21 Oct 2017, 4:27 am by Garrett Hinck
On Monday, the Supreme Court granted cert. in Microsoft v. [read post]
27 Feb 2019, 2:46 pm
 As the IPKat previously noted, had a choreographer directed Ribeiro on how to perform the dance, then the issue of ownership of copyright would not be clear cut.There are two reported UK cases on dance copyright [Holland v Vivian Van Damm Productions Ltd [1936] MCC 69 and Massine v De Basil (1938) [1936-45] MCC 233]. [read post]
20 Oct 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
 We observe in closing that in Dobbs v. [read post]
14 Aug 2015, 9:15 am
Some exhibits (e.g. the original fabric from the leading non-identical artistic work infringement decision in Designers Guild v Russell Williams, which this Kat has still never seen) are going to be kept but others -- including the photos of the jif lemon and Borden ReaLemon in Reckitt & Colman v Borden) are going to be ditched, if they haven't already. [read post]