Search for: "B. R." Results 9901 - 9920 of 55,775
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
In substance, D2 discloses the examples A, B and C. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 11:45 am by Stephanie Smith, Arden Chambers.
Court of Appeal decision In the Court of Appeal (the panel comprising Rix, Wilson and Keene LJJ), the issues were: a)     whether the council’s decision in their letter of 21 November 2008 was consistent with their assessment of Ms McDonald’s night-time need; b)    whether, if not, Ms McDonald was entitled to damages for breach of ECHR, art 8; and c)     whether the council had discriminated against Ms McDonald on grounds… [read post]
30 Oct 2021, 9:50 am by Russell Knight
R. 237(b) Being called into the principal’s office is bad enough…but this notice can make you bring homework, too. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 5:20 am by David Vasella
Das BGer verneint zunächst eine willkürliche Anwendung von MSchG 2 b: "Die Beschwerdeführerinnen [sc. [read post]
La fin des clauses de disparités de traitements, la réduction de la durée du service continu pour bénéficier d’une troisième semaine de vacance payée de même que les autres dispositions ayant pour objectif d’améliorer la conciliation travail-famille sont certainement dans l’ère du temps. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 12:01 pm
In Case R 513/2011-2 Société des Produits Nestlé S.A v Cadbury Holdings Ltd, Nestlé appealed a decision of the Cancellation Division finding the three-dimensional Community trade mark, consisting of four trapezoidal bars aligned on a rectangular base for 'Sweets; bakery products, pastries, biscuits; cakes, waffles' in Class 30, was devoid of distinctive character and had therefore been invalidly registered contrary to Art. 7(1)(b), Reg. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 3:48 am
The court or tribunal will have to determine what the defendant knew (the subjective element) and to determine whether his actions to register the mark with such knowledge would be regarded as being in bad faith by persons adopting proper standards (the objective element) (Valentino Globe v Pacific Rim Industries [2010] 2 SLR 1203, Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd [2009] 2 SLR (R) 814). [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 6:13 am by Sean Hanover
Hanover Law, PCOffices in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DCwww.hanoverlawpc.com 2751 Prosperity Ave, Ste 150Fairfax, VA 22031 Sean R. [read post]
23 Mar 2018, 2:54 am
Yargıtay kararının Tam Metni Aşağıdadır..Devamını oku [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 5:43 am
Peter pointed to R 998/2013-3 Austrotherm v Termo Organika and R 2162/2014-3 Velekey Szerelvénygyártó v Rotovill for his proposition that the alternative form test was alive and well (again) in the practice of the OHIM's (soon EUIPO) Boards of Appeal. [read post]