Search for: "Maker v. Maker"
Results 121 - 140
of 7,142
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jan 2009, 4:40 am
NowSmellThis: Nina Ricci to sue makers of Twillight. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 1:38 am
While Huawei v. [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 2:23 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 3:00 am
In Woods v. [read post]
19 Nov 2008, 9:04 am
Grange v. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 9:41 am
Mattel, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 8:30 am
Maynard v. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 12:10 pm
And celebrity Lindsay Lohan sued Rockstar, the maker of Grand Theft Auto V, alleging that elements of the game tread too close to her real life. [read post]
22 Jun 2014, 3:44 pm
Justice Jenkins considered this issue in the recent case of Polischuk Estate v. [read post]
24 Nov 2021, 2:28 pm
In Laszlo v. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 8:42 am
It should be therefore closely watched by scholars, advocates and policy makers. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 8:42 am
It should be therefore closely watched by scholars, advocates and policy makers. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 2:45 am
Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Others Court of Appeal “Plastic toy models of storm trooper helmets featured in the Star Wars films were not sculptures for the purposes of the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1986 and their maker was entitled to a defence under section 51 of that Act on the basis that it was not a copyright infringement to copy an article made to a design. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 8:46 pm
The case cite is Kona USA, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Oct 2009, 3:46 am
Co. v. [read post]
29 Feb 2008, 9:03 am
Kent, Oyez.org Riegel v. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 12:25 pm
However, in Commission scolaire de Laval v. [read post]
15 Nov 2007, 1:33 am
Last month, the High Court ruled in Sheffield Wednesday FC v Neil Hargreaves that the identity of anonymous makers of comments on a website could stay hidden where those comments were "trivial" in nature, even if they were defamatory. [read post]
23 Apr 2023, 10:21 am
Case in point, the Munich I Regional Court wil hold an OPPO v. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 1:55 am
Ashland Inc., et al. v. [read post]
