Search for: "Israel v. Israel" Results 1041 - 1060 of 2,326
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2015, 11:01 am
| OHIM’s rebranding | LV’s pattern as trade mark | EPO and trade unions | Patent and first-mover advantage | Libraries’ right to digitise their collection in Germany.Never too late 42 [week ending on Sunday 19 April] – WIPO Roving Seminars in Israel | Foster v Svenson, or "of taking pictures of your neighbours" | Trade marks and social networks | Jan Rosen on CJEU's public criterion to assess whether linking amounts… [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 3:56 am
******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATENever too late 42 [week ending on Sunday 19 April] – WIPO Roving Seminars in Israel | Foster v Svenson, or "of taking pictures of your neighbours" | Trade marks and social networks | Jan Rosen on CJEU's public criterion to assess whether linking amounts communication to the public | EU Commission's misinformation about UPC | Dior v (Sirous) Dior | Lyricists and copyright |… [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 12:35 pm by Eliot Kim
Earlier this month, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Linde v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 1:00 am by Rick St. Hilaire
 The government objects to the defendants' efforts to scuttle the case of United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2009, 4:17 am
Bank v Ernst & Young, 285 AD2d 101, 107-108 [2001] no privity between lender and borrower's accountants where only contact was single phone call]; see also Israel Discount Bank of N.Y. v Miller, Ellin & Co., 277 AD2d 58, 59 [2000]). [read post]
6 Dec 2022, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
Business lawyers may have to navigate their clients through disputes about boycotts of Israel or Cuba. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 6:23 am
Florida and Sullivan v. [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 6:06 am by Amy Howe
Clinton, the first round of litigation involving a challenge by a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem to the State Department’s refusal to list “Israel” as his place of birth on his passport, and what it might mean for the upcoming argument in Zivotofsky v. [read post]
12 Apr 2016, 8:48 am by Jack Goldsmith
 Since Iran had not yet attacked Israel or the United States, or indeed even developed a nuclear weapons capability, it appears that the only conceivable legal justification under the Charter for the cyberattacks was an exercise of “first-use” anticipatory self-defense with a temporally very generous conception of imminence (including speculative likelihood of use) that Marty says is the core Bush administration evil. [read post]