Search for: "Does 1 - 29"
Results 8821 - 8840
of 13,860
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Mar 2013, 11:00 am
As a result, the Board held that an employer maintaining a policy against employees discussing ongoing investigations violates Section 8(a)(1). [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 5:00 am
March 1, 2013) (memorandum). [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 3:00 am
Averitte (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, January 29, 2013). [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 5:27 am
Code § 1037(a)(1). [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 4:50 am
The fundamental question in this appeal was whether the 1.5 ratio permitted under section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code is available only in “exceptional” circumstances, or does the inherent nature of pre-trial custody justify the enhanced credit of 1.5 to 1. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 4:50 am
The fundamental question in this appeal was whether the 1.5 ratio permitted under section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code is available only in “exceptional” circumstances, or does the inherent nature of pre-trial custody justify the enhanced credit of 1.5 to 1. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 4:29 pm
Reply Br. 1-3. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 12:27 pm
§414[p][1] [B][i]; 29 U.S.C. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 10:20 am
Mar. 29, 2012). [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 5:15 am
After receiving Royal Assent on June 29, 2012, the provisions of Bill C-11 came into force on November 7, 2012. [read post]
10 Mar 2013, 7:55 pm
The biographies on some of the 29 governing board members come up short. [read post]
10 Mar 2013, 5:54 pm
Some points: 1. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 2:00 pm
With a first plea, the claimant asserted invalidity in light of Articles 52(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation EC 40/94 (now Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation EC 207/2009 - CTMR), for likelihood of confusion with the earlier national trade mark DANIEL & MAYER MADE IN ITALY, registered by the claimant in Italy in 1981 for goods in Class 25. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 8:59 am
Id. at *29. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 8:02 am
That was not done here, and so this rule cannot be relied upon… [29] It may be that Rule 1-3 provides inherent jurisdiction to make an order restoring this action to the trial list for March 4, 2013. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 2:39 am
Delhi HC) where it was held that registration of a trademark does not provide a defense to proceedings for passing off, as under Section 27(2) of the Act and a prior user of a trademark can sue any subsequent user (even a registered user) for passing off. [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 9:31 am
If Question 1 is answered in the negative: 2.1 Does a scheme establish 'fair compensation' for the purposes of Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC if the right specified in Question 1(a) applies only where recording media are marketed to natural persons who use the recording media to make reproductions for private purposes? [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 1:07 am
Properties are assessed for safety against 29 ‘hazards’. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
A.The applicant filed a request for re-establishment on November 29, 2011.The EPO informed the applicant that this request was late-filed because the cause of non-compliance within the meaning of R 136(1) had been removed on September 20.The applicant argued that the paralegals of the private practice had asked Dr. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 2:00 pm
” Complaint, Pg. 17, Para.29. [read post]
