Search for: "Columbia Pictures Inc"
Results 141 - 160
of 266
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2019, 8:01 am
The issue was whether PHM knew or had reason to believe that this was the case, specifically whether this was true of Mr Beatty, owner of LTEV, a shareholder in PHM and Managing Director of both companies.See no evil, here no evil, liable for no evilFBT referred the Court to Columbia Pictures Industries Inc v Robinson [1987] 1 Ch 38 where Scott J said that a person who deliberately refrains from inquiry and shuts their eyes to that which is obvious, cannot be heard to say… [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 8:24 pm
Privately Collected Payroll Data Automatic Data Processing, Inc. [read post]
13 Jul 2016, 8:04 am
Supp. 2d 500, 518–19 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (triable issue of fact existed as to whether employee-uploaders were acting as website’s agents, where uploaders served as “editorial voice” for website and website posted “staff badge” next to uploaders’ names on their posts); Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 11:21 am
British Columbia (Labour Relations Board), 2011 BCSC 455 Voltage Pictures LLC c. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 8:48 pm
1604(i); Idaho Sporting Cong., Inc. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2019, 4:08 pm
In Loblaws Inc. v Columbia Insurance Company, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on the grounds that confusion could not be established between Pampered Chef’s short-form marks and Loblaw’s PC Marks. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 9:01 pm
STEVE JOBS (1955 – 2011) We here at Abnormal Use were saddened this week to learn of the death of tech pioneer and Apple, Inc. czar Steve Jobs. [read post]
9 Nov 2023, 2:56 pm
Paramount Pictures, Inc., the Supreme Court was concerned about the exhibition tactics being taken by these major studios. [read post]
6 Aug 2019, 4:08 pm
In Loblaws Inc. v Columbia Insurance Company, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on the grounds that confusion could not be established between Pampered Chef’s short-form marks and Loblaw’s PC Marks. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 4:36 pm
– Brazil Catholic Church sues Columbia Pictures over unauthorised depiction of Christ the Redeemer statue in movie (SiNApSE) LG Group meeting a problem concerning its trademark in Brazil (Relat IP) Canada Speech from the Throne (Excess Copyright) (Michael Geist) Bannerman on copyright timelines (Michael Geist) Clement on copyright: A made-in Canada approach (Michael Geist) The doctrine of ‘inherent inticipation’ in Canada: A time for review? [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 4:36 pm
– Brazil Catholic Church sues Columbia Pictures over unauthorised depiction of Christ the Redeemer statue in movie (SiNApSE) LG Group meeting a problem concerning its trademark in Brazil (Relat IP) Canada Speech from the Throne (Excess Copyright) (Michael Geist) Bannerman on copyright timelines (Michael Geist) Clement on copyright: A made-in Canada approach (Michael Geist) The doctrine of ‘inherent inticipation’ in Canada: A time for review? [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 9:16 pm
Zimmerman (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) (Copyrights & Campaigns) District Court C D California: IsoHunt told to pull .torrent files offline, likely to close: Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., et al. v. [read post]
18 Dec 2010, 12:07 am
In Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Sep 2019, 4:00 pm
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) set the elements for determining whether the filing of litigation qualifies as a “sham. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 2:59 am
Google entered the picture in September 2012 when Equustek asked it to de-index the Datalink websites. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 10:51 pm
Columbia Pictures, Inc., 128 Cal. 3d. [read post]
6 Oct 2009, 6:55 am
Cal. 2009), quoting Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 1:16 pm
Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49, 60-61 (1993) (“PRE”). [read post]
21 Jan 2018, 4:51 pm
Brecknell (2018 BCCA 5) it was decided that the police could be granted a “production order” against Craiglslist on the basis that it had “virtual presence” in British Columbia. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 6:23 am
The Supreme Court of Canada has never decided a workplace race discrimination case in the Charter era (although that will end soon, as it heard arguments in Bombardier Inc. v. [read post]
