Search for: "Harmon v. Harmon" Results 901 - 920 of 1,482
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Mar 2013, 9:17 am by Rick St. Hilaire
Morevoer, the listed Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 9703 number, which designates original sculptures and statuary, was off target say the prosecutors. [read post]
23 Aug 2018, 10:37 pm
[On a side note, comparing this to the Sheeran v Switch case - Switch went for varying degrees of both approaches in that they argued the two had mutual friends and that the 'Oh Why' song was on several platforms, but his YouTube video only has 41,122 views and there's no Grammy nomination...]But back to the matter at hand - having convinced the Court that there was a reasonable possibility that the writers had access to the work, the next question was whether or not the… [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 7:25 am by John W. Arden
Arden.A terminated snowplow dealer’s New Hampshire Equipment Dealership Act, Consumer Protection Act, and Antitrust Act claims against its manufacturer were dismissed without prejudice, based on a contractual choice of Maine forum, according to the federal district court in Concord, New Hampshire (Summa Humma Enterprises, LLC v. [read post]
24 Aug 2018, 3:22 am by Ben
” It went on to say that the ostinatos in both songs are identical, both ostinatos are nearly identical in pitch content and melodic contour as is the mechanical style, and that the timbre of the upper and primary voice are remarkably similar.However, the Defendants relied on the report of their own musicology expert who opined that “‘Dark Horse’ does not share any significant structural, harmonic, rhythmic, melodic, or lyrical similarities, individually or in… [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 3:41 am
For example, the Supreme Court decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc. [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 4:13 am by Ben
"  the Court note[d] that, with regard to the nature and extent of the protection which Member States may recognize broadcasting organizations, the Directive does not harmonize any differences between national laws, so it does not preclude more protective provisions. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 10:43 am
 As of today, this case arguably represent the most sophisticated and explicit use of EU pre-emption by the Court and – in even more express terms – by AG Wathelet in his Opinion [here].In the present case, should the CJEU decide to follow the Opinion of its AG, this would mean that an approach like the one adopted by the Dutch Supreme Court in Kecofa v Lancôme (in which copyright was found to subsist in the smell of a perfume) would not be allowed.Is copyright like… [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 6:02 pm by Larry
Such is the case with Nature’s Touch Frozen Foods v. [read post]
23 May 2017, 3:19 pm by Larry
For purposes of Sigvaris, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 5:00 am by Thomas Walton
Swenson sits on the boards of Harmonic Inc., Novatel Wireless Inc., and Spirent Communications plc; Ms. [read post]
26 May 2017, 4:17 am by Jon Hyman
“Saying It’s So, Doesn’t Make It So”—Independent Contractor v. [read post]
3 Oct 2024, 11:50 am by Angelo A. Paparelli
Bankruptcy Court) with broad authority to interpret, declare and harmonize immigration laws and agency regulations on a national basis. [read post]
9 Dec 2006, 4:41 pm
The academic community was also supportive.Dreyfuss: Was that for harmonization/unification reasons or a normative assessment of the merits? [read post]
3 Oct 2024, 9:57 am by Daniel M. Kowalski
Bankruptcy Court) with broad authority to interpret, declare and harmonize immigration laws and agency regulations on a national basis. [read post]
22 Oct 2012, 11:02 pm by Victoria VanBuren
UCI argued that the statute of limitations within the Code is clear and applying it differently depending on the particular national laws and standards would be in direct contradiction with the purpose of harmonization of the Code. [read post]