Search for: "Label v Label" Results 9221 - 9240 of 13,305
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jan 2014, 5:02 am
  The first case was a nice preemption win, Wells v. [read post]
2 Dec 2012, 9:30 pm by Rick St. Hilaire
Customs and Border Protection] need not demonstrate that the [Chinese and Cypriot] articles are restricted; rather, the [CPIA] statute 'expressly places the burden on importers to prove that they are importable.'"The case of United States v. [read post]
2 Aug 2014, 8:34 am by John Jascob
The law does not demand good faith from a seller in “those vague commendations of his wares which manifestly are open to difference of opinion,” said Justice Holmes in Deming v. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 9:22 pm by Afro Leo
  It provides in article 11 for member countries to adopt effective measures to ensure that tobacco packaging and labelling do not promote a tobacco product by any means that are false, misleading, deceptive or likely to create an erroneous impression about its characteristics, health effects, hazards, or emissions. [read post]
12 Nov 2012, 6:26 am
  The Bridgeport Superior Court’s decision is arguably a departure from the precedent established inBurkert v. [read post]
16 Oct 2020, 3:32 am by Sophie Corke
The (supposed) test The leading case on professional advisors’ potential conflict of interest is Bolkiah v KPMG [1999] 2 AC 222¸where professional advisors (in an analogous position to solicitors) formerly acted for an applicant who then wished to restrain them from acting for its opponent. [read post]
5 Dec 2021, 2:52 am by Giorgio Luceri
The label had licensed the use of the song to defendant Warner Music UK Ltd, which produced an album containing a rap version of Mr Alcee's song, performed by The Heartless Crew. [read post]
9 Nov 2021, 9:56 pm by Riana Harvey
However, in light of the Taittinger decision (Taittinger SA v ALLBEV LTD [1993] F.S.R. 641, which had arisen in the context of ‘extended’ passing off) and the ‘Basmati Bus’ decision, misrepresentation could arise even in the case of goods of a different nature, as a non-negligible part of the relevant public might believe that the goods referred to by the BoA (namely flour of rice, rice based snack food, rice pulp or rice meal for forage), when labelled as… [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 3:15 am by Ben
" And Mr Justice Birss in the High Court has ordered a group of ISPs to block access to the “Popcorn Time” application for copyright film and TV content: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and others v Sky UK Ltd and others. [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 10:55 am by Larry
The most recent entry in the parade of cases on this topic is Ovan International Ltd. v. [read post]