Search for: "Arnold v. Arnold" Results 41 - 60 of 2,314
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Nov 2023, 8:02 am by Hayleigh Bosher
Indeed, easyGroup lost a trade mark dispute against EasyRoommate where Arnold J (as he then was) found that the trade mark was descriptive and therefore invalid. [read post]
19 Oct 2023, 9:05 pm by Gianna Hill
In a recent report, Viral V. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 4:18 pm by INFORRM
On 25 August 2023, the Court of Appeal Nicola Davies, Arnold and Warby LJJ) handed down judgment in Blake & ors v Fox [2023] EWCA Civ 1000. [read post]
1 Oct 2023, 10:16 am by Giles Peaker
Reading Borough Council v Holland (2023) EWHC 1902 (Ch) An appeal of a possession order made at first instance for Ms Holland’s introductory tenancy of sheltered accommodation. [read post]
10 Sep 2023, 12:06 pm by Rose Hughes
It is difficult to align the interpretation of G 2/21 by Lord Justice Arnold in Sandoz v BMS with the Board of Appeal decision in T 0116/18 reported in the minutes of oral proceedings. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 4:06 am by Henry P Yang
This is the final part of this Kat’s analysis on Interdigital v Lenovo FRAND judgment [2023] EWHC 539 (Pat). [read post]
4 Sep 2023, 2:04 am by Alessandro Cerri
The Court, however, applying the principles of construction established in Arnold v Britton, Wood v Capita and Rainy Sky, found that on a correct construction, the 1997 licence only licensed Ford’s US federal trade marks, and not any others. [read post]
15 Aug 2023, 4:29 am
 Jane LambertCourt of Appeal (Lords Justices Arnold and Stuart-Smith and Lady Justice Falk) Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and another v Astellas Pharma Inc [2023] EWCA Civ 880 (25 July 2023) This was an appeal against the dismissal of the claim by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva UK Ltd. [read post]
8 Aug 2023, 1:00 am by Rose Hughes
Accordingly, as recently summarised by Lord Justice Arnold, the three key considerations for claim interpretation in the UK are 1) the wording of the claim, 2) the context provided by the specification and 3) the inventor’s purpose (InterDigital v Lenovo [2023] EWCA Civ 105). [read post]
6 Aug 2023, 10:00 pm by Merpel McKitten
Lord Justice Richard Arnold through Eleanor Wilson, who only lacks an ‘o’ and the final letter ‘a’ in common with the esteemed Professor Eleonora Rosati, but who makes up for this nominal deficiency by her enthusiasm for swing dancing and cocktails. [read post]
4 Aug 2023, 6:17 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” “ Betz commenced an action against the respondent, and multiple successor attorneys who served the executor and/or the estate, in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entitled Debra Betz, Administrator of the Estate of Carmelo Carbone (a/k/a Mel Carbone ) v Arnold Blatt, et al. [read post]