Search for: "Mr. X"
Results 1521 - 1540
of 2,306
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Aug 2011, 7:24 am
As Mr. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 12:33 pm
" Whenever you hear the disclaimer that, "while there is no excuse" for X, you know perfectly well that the thing you'll be reading next is an excuse for X. [read post]
10 Aug 2011, 12:55 pm
Namely, you can never identify in advance all the possible “X factors” that can lead to better (or worse) outcomes for your case. [read post]
5 Aug 2011, 4:35 pm
Mr. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 7:48 am
In other words, if I own the trademark for Brand X on water bottles in the United States and someone in China starts calling their water bottles "Brand X," there is no law to stop that company from selling Brand X water bottles in China unless I registered "Brand X" in China or Brand X for water bottles is a well-known mark. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 6:15 am
Mr. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 12:36 am
This is one of the first judgments on the applicability of Article 6 to disciplinary and dismissal proceedings since the decision of the Supreme Court in R (G) v X School Governors [2011] UKSC 30 (read our post). [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 1:44 pm
The Judge below should have ordered the payment of the 3 x penalty under s.214(4). [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 1:44 pm
The Judge below should have ordered the payment of the 3 x penalty under s.214(4). [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 9:38 am
As Mr. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 10:45 am
Mr. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 11:01 pm
Miffy nose is an X, and Kathy's nose is a O.Rabbits are known for their talent to reproduce, but Mercis, the company representing Miffy's creator, Dick Bruna, held that there can be only one: Miffy, based on Miffy's Dutch copyright and Benelux trademark.November 2, 2010, the judge responsible for interim relief (voorzieningenrechter) Amsterdam Regional Court (Rechtbank Amsterdam) agreed with Mercis that Sanrio infringes both Mr Bruna's copyright and trademark… [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 7:53 pm
Justice Aftab AlamSupreme Court of IndiaThe Supreme Court, in a recent decision in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v Jindal Exports Ltd, has examined the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal in cases where appeals are not maintainable under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. [read post]
23 Jul 2011, 1:30 am
Mr Pay appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal and lost. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 10:06 am
X v. [read post]
21 Jul 2011, 12:53 pm
Nor does he hesitate to assail lawyers, asking why they have not taken point X or cited case Y. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 1:36 pm
Mrs. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 11:30 pm
The ET made a complete mess of the case and in holding that the company had acted unfairly in dismissing Mr X completely misapplied the relevant law. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 2:25 pm
X-Posted: Concurring Opinions. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 5:02 am
R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School [2011] UKSC 30 – Read judgment On 4 October 2007 the parents of a 15 year old boy complained that he had been kissed by his 22 year old school sessional music teaching assistant (G). [read post]
