Search for: "SCOTT v. GOOGLE INC"
Results 101 - 120
of 172
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Nov 2014, 4:06 pm
Hong Kong The judge has given Google permission to appeal against the decision in Yeung v Google Inc ([2014] HKCFI 1404) granting permission to serve libel proceedings out of the jurisdiction. [read post]
23 Dec 2022, 5:09 am
The second case, Twitter, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2021, 4:39 pm
IPSO 07567-21 Ranger v Daily Mail, 1 Accuracy (201), No breach – after investigation 07566-21 Ranger v Telegraph.co.uk, 1 Accuracy (2019), No breach – after investigation 06518-21 Extinction Rebellion v The Daily Telegraph, 1 Accuracy, No breach – after investigation 06401-21 League Against Cruel Sports v The Sunday Telegraph, 1 Accuracy (2019), No breach – after investigation 05940-21 Cygnet Health Care Ltd and Dr Tony Romero v… [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 10:32 am
GOLO, LLC v. [read post]
30 May 2010, 2:08 pm
In Trkulja v Google Inc LLC & Anor [2010] VSC 226 (27 May 2010) the plaintiff complained about photographic images and captions produced as a result of searches on the “Google Image” service. [read post]
26 Nov 2012, 2:38 am
” The article discussed a no-poach agreement used by several large high tech companies (Adobe Systems, Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc. and Pixar) to refrain from soliciting the other’s employees. [read post]
14 May 2010, 4:19 am
Quattrocchi (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) TTAB finds SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION merely descriptive of marketing services (TTABlog) Trademark holder not entitled to domain name registered years before: National Arbitration Forum decision in Arizona State Trailer Sales, Inc. d/b/a Little Dealer Little Prices RV v. [read post]
14 Jul 2013, 5:45 am
Again http://t.co/y0unOiUO3M -> Computer and Internet Law Weekly Updates for 2013-07-06: Computer and Internet Law Updates for 2013-06-28: Com… http://t.co/68wn0271oo -> Crass and Offensive Tweets by Student May not Justify Suspension — Rosario v. [read post]
3 Dec 2021, 9:49 am
Mastercard Inc.; 7:21-cv-10180, Kenter v. [read post]
3 Dec 2021, 9:49 am
Mastercard Inc.; 7:21-cv-10180, Kenter v. [read post]
9 Aug 2008, 1:50 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: The end of William Patry’s blog: (Patry Copyright Blog), (Excess Copyright), (Patently-O), (Chicago IP Litigation Blog), (Michael Geist), (The Fire of Genius), (Techdirt), (Patry Copyright Blog), Kitchin J clarifies scope of biotech patents, in particular gene sequence patents: Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences:… [read post]
10 Jan 2019, 7:15 am
Murphy, and Apple Inc. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2018, 11:32 am
United States Inc. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2010, 4:03 pm
In Trkulja v Google Inc & Anor (No 2) [2010] VSC 490 the Supreme Court of Victoria struck out a number of defamatory imputations and ordered the provision of further particulars in a long running claim against Google. [read post]
23 Aug 2008, 1:23 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: DRM for streaming music dies a quiet death: (Electronic Frontier Foundation), (Techdirt) CAFC decides Apotex and Impax infringed AstraZeneca’s Prilosec patents: (Law360), (Patent Prospector), (Patent Docs), (GenericsWeb), CAFC upholds lower court’s decision finding USPTO was within its rights to subject a Cooper patent to… [read post]
13 Apr 2014, 8:59 am
Scott Paper Co. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 9:48 am
In PTSI, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2022, 3:10 am
Not long after I finished reading, I felt eerily reminded of another antitrust complaint involving games, platforms (iOS), and even the subscription model (Apple Arcade): Pistacchio v. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 1:42 pm
Meanwhile, it is no surprise members of the California criminal defense bar are hoping the justices rule against the plaintiffs in Facebook Inc. v. [read post]
16 Jun 2017, 4:40 pm
Other actions: * Grattan v Porter – $170,000 after the defendant telephoned a school alleging sexual misconduct, Queensland. * Dr Janice Duffy v Google Inc – $100,000 following search results and hyperlinks suggesting she was a “psychic stalker”, SA. * Douglas v McLernon – $700,000 to three Perth businessmen defamed on the internet, WA. * Dodds v McDonald – a Queensland barrister’s website accused the… [read post]
