Search for: "In re C. B-W"
Results 881 - 900
of 1,732
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jan 2016, 5:00 am
Examine the roadkill to see the path we’re on. [read post]
8 Jan 2016, 7:00 am
During my 21 years at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) – now known as Global Affairs Canada (GAC) – I was privileged to represent Canada in a number of GATT, WTO, and NAFTA trade disputes and one somewhat obscure but important case under the Canada- U.S. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am
And finally Eleonora updated on the CJEU's decision in Case C-279/13 C More Entertainment where the CJEU said that live broadcasts are not communication to the public within InfoSoc Directive, but Member States can protect them: "[The Information Society] [D]irective provides that broadcasting organizations may prohibit the provision to the public fixations of their broadcasts [read post]
17 Dec 2015, 1:07 pm
V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 4:09 am
(b) should lead you to the same holding with respect to other kinds of falsity with commercial effects, though.] [read post]
4 Dec 2015, 6:14 am
. . . .B. agreed.State v. [read post]
3 Dec 2015, 12:25 pm
He added, “[w]e should grant certiorari to discourage this appetite—or maybe just serve green beans. [read post]
3 Dec 2015, 9:26 am
Software & Info Industry Ass’n: Just b/c of lack of legal liability, doesn’t follow that intermediaries/platforms should do nothing. [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 8:14 am
MansfieldLinda LuceAnsley B. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 3:44 am
Code § 1229a(c)(6)(C).Makwana v. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 10:03 am
Coplay Cement Co., 44 F 277: no cause of action for false advertising of geographic origin b/c of Pandora’s box—no one can sue for public nuisance w/o specific injury/invasion of property right. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 8:59 am
Maybe b/c it makes market work better—allocative efficiency. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
Here’s how they work together:Comment b following §908 further states that “[r]eckless indifference to the rights of others and conscious action in deliberate disregard of them (see §500) may provide the necessary state of mind to justify punitive damages. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 6:18 am
” Responded O’Connell: “[W]e think the clearest indication here that it doesn’t make sense for the qualifier to apply to all three of the categories is that it literally renders categories B and C the same. [read post]
1 Nov 2015, 5:27 am
B. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 10:24 am
Brilliant strategy: no fit b/c we can find some other sugary drinks you’re not imposing labeling on. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 9:17 am
But—at least when the endorsers aren’t savvy as the Kardashians—they’re often just like the other people in their social circles—they find some things intuitive and some things confusing; they’re neither robots nor children. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 7:48 am
That’s inconsistent w/1stAmendment b/c inconsistent of your right to determine what you want to say, though it’s truthful and beyond dispute (unless you are Greek Orthodox). [read post]
29 Oct 2015, 3:00 am
They’ll never know what they’re missing. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 1:07 pm
A brief review of the justifications usually given for the exclusions for marks that are scandalous or disparaging: (1) the harm done by the government endorsement represented by a registration; (2) the desire to withhold government resources from disparaging or scandalous terms; (3) the lack of any effect on a user’s ability or right to use the mark, with (a) possible §43(a) or state common law protection against confusing uses despite unregistrability, though this is not at all… [read post]
