Search for: "Flowers v. Flowers" Results 1021 - 1040 of 1,179
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jan 2010, 10:54 am by Jeff Gamso
Last week we learned that Judge Berchelmann doesn't think there should be any sanction imposed on Sharon Keller.Yesterday, we saw that the Supreme Court declined its own invitation to overrule (or at least weaken) Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 3:23 am
(Spicy IP) Sanctity of Section 21 Patents Act (Spicy IP) ‘Abandoning’ legal fogginess: A proposal for patent clarity – section 21 Patents Act (Spicy IP) Court gives nod to patent for image on flowers: Speaking Roses International Inc v Controller-General Of Patents and Anr. [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 3:28 pm by georgbrem
“This is one more attempt to erase the history of the peoples of the former Soviet Union, including the heroic history, from historical memory,” Prime Minister Vladimir V. [read post]
15 Nov 2009, 9:54 pm
OH WAIT….MY MISTAKE….READ ON] From chocolate to cereal, football to flowers--and they all have logos. [read post]
14 Nov 2009, 5:59 am by Rebecca Tushnet
(This doesn't seem to go to sponsorship of communications v. sponsorship of products and services.) [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 4:37 am
Avenue J, Lancaster, CA 93534 Alhambra Courthouse 150 West Commonwealth, Alhambra, CA 91801 Bellflower Courthouse 10025 East Flower Street, Bellflower, CA 90706 Beverly Hills Courthouse 9355 Burton Way, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Burbank Courthouse 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502 Catalina Courthouse 215 Summer Avenue, Avalon, CA 90704 Central Arraignment Courts 429 Bauchet St., Los Angeles, CA 90012 Central Civil West Courthouse 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA… [read post]
8 Nov 2009, 9:36 am
Interflora British Unit v Marks and Spencer PLC Flowers Direct Online Limited [2009] EWHC 1095 (Ch), Mr Justice Arnold (High Court, England and Wales) felt it appropriate to refer a number of questions to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the legality of the purchase and use of words including a third party's trade mark as a keyword (see earlier IPKat post here). [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 2:48 pm
This seems particularly relevant given the general feeling that the UK is implementing EC DP law at the minimum or below : see the EU's continuing efforts to persuade the UK to buck up over Phorm, not to mention long-simmering confusion or dismay over (a) Durant v FSA and (b) relatedly, our lack of sync with the Art 29 WP as to when and if to treat IP addresses as personal data.It also of course means the UK remains unbound, at least in theory, by Article 36 of the Charter of Rights… [read post]