Search for: "Arnold v. Commonwealth"
Results 1 - 20
of 35
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jan 2024, 5:01 am
Arneson, 766 F.3d 774, 796 (8th Cir. 2014); see also Commonwealth v. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 7:38 am
That was a threshold condition, and not question of discretion, R (Omar) -v- Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2014] QB 112 [30]. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 6:02 am
But see Commonwealth v. [read post]
20 May 2021, 2:26 am
The Supreme Court has recently heard the appeal in FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Brownlie: an important case concerning service out of the jurisdiction. [read post]
20 Sep 2020, 10:30 pm
In the case of Little v. [read post]
15 Aug 2020, 4:05 am
The survey showed some degree of recognition of the shape and a level of association with JLR, but not recognition of the shapes as trade marks, i.e. as designating the goods of JLR and no other's.For those reasons, the Court was satisfied that the Hearing Officer had carefully and fairly assessed the survey evidence in a way which disclosed no error of principle.CommentWhat this case essentially confirms is the approach previously adopted by Arnold J (as he then was) in… [read post]
22 Jun 2020, 8:51 am
Brian Arnold of Arnold Wadsworth & Coggins offers a free consultation in divorce and/or family law issues. [read post]
17 May 2020, 2:57 am
Kat Friend Matt Swinn shed light on a complex case between the Commonwealth of Australia and the pharmaceutical manufacturer Sanofi. [read post]
7 Jun 2017, 9:41 am
Commonwealth, 83 S.W.3d 522, 527 (Ky. 2002)).Huff v. [read post]
9 May 2017, 12:59 pm
An AIPPI Rapid Response Event I WIPO's statistics for 2016: Asia continues to roar I UK UPC ratification still on track despite Article 50 trigger I Does Mr Justice Arnold's decision in Teva v MSD show just how large a role patent law has come to play in assessing SPC validity? [read post]
17 Apr 2017, 12:08 pm
Arnold's Facebook post.Huff v. [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 8:52 pm
Virginia v. [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 2:01 pm
Some Commonwealth countries still have similar provisions: when product produced under patent, you can rely on TM when you have secondary meaning; remain fully enforceable for up to 2 years after patent expired, but then name becomes free to use. [read post]
19 May 2016, 6:37 am
Because the Regulation merely limited the "use" of trade marks they did not strip away the trade mark owner;s right to prevent or exclude others from using their mark (citing Arnold J in Pinterest v Premium Interest). [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 12:51 pm
In U.S. v. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 12:51 pm
In U.S. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 7:31 am
Arnold v Britton & Ors, heard 26 January 2015. [read post]
18 May 2015, 1:00 am
Arnold v Britton & Ors, heard 26 January 2015. [read post]
8 May 2015, 7:00 am
Arnold v Britton & Ors, heard 26 January 2015. [read post]
4 May 2015, 1:00 am
Arnold v Britton & Ors, heard 26 January 2015. [read post]
