Search for: "LJ" Results 841 - 860 of 2,386
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Mar 2016, 12:11 pm by Giles Peaker
It is also worth noting the comments of Arden LJ (at 42-43): Licence and tenancy are not, however, watertight concepts. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 9:46 am
Lewison LJ reiterated at the outset that the purpose of an account of profits is to quantify the extent to which the infringer would be unjustly enriched if he were to retain the profits derived by him from the infringement. [read post]
9 Mar 2016, 7:17 am
The overall impression of a horned animalKitchin LJ held that the overall impression given by the CRD was that of a horned animal. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 2:00 pm by Legal Skills Prof
From the Business Insider, here is an infograph (sorry that the formatting is awkward): (ljs) [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 10:20 am
Kitchin LJ noted that the real problems concerning the use of the sign only came to light when Comic Enterprises launched new venue [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 5:57 am by Sally-Ann Underhill and James Hatchard
Tomlinson LJ also took the opportunity to correct his approach in the Happy Ranger [2001] Lloyd’s Rep 530 (which has to be read in light of the Court of Appeal’s decision [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 357). [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 9:55 pm by Simon Gibbs
Jackson LJ’s proposals run the danger of conflating the two different systems. [read post]
The appeal came before the Court of Appeal on 10 February 2015 and the approved Judgment was delivered by Black LJ. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 2:40 pm by familoo
Wall LJ was critical of some of the wording of the questions and recommendations of the report, in particular in relation to the suggestion that judges should be held “responsible” for the actions of a parent. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 4:10 pm by INFORRM
Judgment Burnett LJ (with whom Sweeney J agreed) noted the centrality of the principle of open justice to the rule of law [16]. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 6:07 am
In Bongrain SA’s Trade Mark Application [2004] EWCA Civ 1690 at [26]-[28], Jacobs LJ had, interpreting various European case law including Joined Cases C-456/01P and C-457/01 P Henkel v OHIM EU:C:2004:258, rejected the idea that a “fancy” or unusual shape of goods would automatically be taken by the public as a trade mark denoting trade origin. [read post]