Search for: "LITTLE v. TERRITORY"
Results 1121 - 1140
of 1,358
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2011, 1:21 pm
Schleicher v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 4:30 am
isn't it a matter that could better be dealt with by code and co-regulation, rather than regulation which would be territorially limited and probably merely favour US over EU digital industry? [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 9:21 pm
There is little question that the Obama administration believes that it is the preferred outcome, but is that built into the terms of the SC resolution? [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 8:00 pm
Employees or former employees can initiate these claims at little or no cost in most Canadian jurisdictions (the various provinces, territories, or the federal sphere). [read post]
20 Mar 2011, 8:06 am
Much of the territory covered by draft Defamation Bill was covered in Ireland by the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here), though there are some important differences as well. [read post]
19 Mar 2011, 2:37 am
Under subsection (1) the privilege will now apply to (a) any court in the UK, (b) any court established under the law of a country or territory outside the UK and (c) any international court or tribunal established by the Security Council of the UN or by international agreement. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 3:26 am
For the record, the appeal was based squarely on EU freedom of movement law and had very little, if anything, to do with human rights. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 10:40 am
Sorrel v. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 11:08 am
So it appears that the prisoner voting issue has reached uncharted territory. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 10:50 am
Our post the other day on Wolicki-Gables v. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 5:37 am
Such a suggestion certainly has novelty value, if little else to commend it. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 12:22 am
Such a suggestion certainly has novelty value, if little else to commend it. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 2:14 am
In particular the texts of the Trade Mark Directive and the Community Trade Mark Regulation should be rewritten to match what the Court of Justice said they actually meant in eg Case C-292/00 Davidoff v Gofkid [we've all got used to the law now, so it would be a shame to spoil things by changing it -- but hasn't the ECJ's ruling in Davidoff done quite a bit to clutter the register by extending trade mark protection way past that which the law explicitly provided?] [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 7:35 am
” (U.S. v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 8:00 am
In Christopher v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 2:55 am
So at the highest level IP v innovation can be boiled down quite neatly. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 5:00 am
We are discussing Morrison v. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 4:06 am
Christopher v. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 3:32 am
So little process. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 11:02 am
If those cards are good, there’s little reason not to show them early and convince the defense to fold. [read post]
