Search for: "Thompson v. Holder" Results 101 - 118 of 118
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Dec 2009, 2:15 am
The Iowa Supreme Court has released an opinion in Thompson v. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 6:45 am
Thompson (Forsyth)(Jolly): claims by holders of Wachovia stock against certain officers and directors of the bank, as well as its auditors, for securities fraud and accounting misstatements relating to the collapse of Wachovia. [read post]
9 Sep 2009, 11:18 pm
  Ian Boyko, Canadian Federation of Students Expand fair dealing in line with the case of CHH v. [read post]
26 Dec 2008, 12:20 am
In Thompson v. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 1:36 pm
(IPKat) EU favours disclosure of computer patents before standards are set (Intellectual Property Watch) Trade Marks Court of First Instance finds RAUTARUUKKI fails to satisfy acquired distinctiveness criterion: Rautaruukki Oyj v OHIM (Class 46) Court of First Instance finds original signature of famous Italian lutist Antonio Stradivari, in arte Stradivarius, of the 17th century, cannot be read by relevant consumers: T‑340/06 (Catch Us If You Can!!!) [read post]
30 Sep 2008, 8:05 pm
Boyden's initial question about contract law being used as an expanding wedge for rights holders. [read post]
7 May 2007, 2:22 am
First Act: 04/25/07 REFERRED TO CODES Last Act: 04/25/07 REFERRED TO CODES S5457 THOMPSON -- Relates to the penalty for violating certain provisions requiring a stop at a railroad crossing Same as A 6300 BLURB : V & T L. penalty rr crossing First Act: 04/25/07 REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION Last Act: 04/25/07 REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION S5458 THOMPSON -- Makes causing… [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 9:53 am
The ACPA prohibits “cybersquatting,” which occurs “when a person other than the trademark holder registers the domain name of a well known trademark and then attempts to profit by either ransoming the domain name or by using the domain name to direct business from the trademark holder to the domain name holder.” DaimlerChrysler v. [read post]
17 Nov 2006, 3:06 am
Merpel says, I still insist that this isn't an intellectual property rights topic - it's all about the appreciation of the value of chattels.Phoney phone covers lead to safe misdirectionR v Thompson is a decision of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (Laws LJ, Penry-Davey J and the Recorder of Chester) yesterday, picked up by LexisNexis Butterworth's subscription-only service. [read post]