Search for: "Dokes v. State"
Results 1 - 11
of 11
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Nov 2019, 9:15 am
What the national court wished to know, in essence, was whether the InfoSoc Directive rights of reproduction (Article 2(b)) and making available to the public (Article 3(2)) preclude a Member State from providing a rebuttable presumption that a performer has authorized the fixation and exploitation of their performances where that performer is involved in the recording of an audiovisual work so that it may be broadcast.The decisionIn providing a response to this question, the CJEU could not… [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 9:41 am
Dokes, Jr. v. [read post]
13 May 2008, 4:11 pm
The State of Texas, No. 08-0356 “… a .22 Caliber Ruger Semi-Automatic Pistol v. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 6:17 am
” United States v. [read post]
28 Nov 2007, 8:08 pm
State v. [read post]
10 Dec 2019, 12:20 am
GuestKat Peter Ling reports on this interesting decision.Richard Vary provides a guest contribution, in which he looks into the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, which overturned a decision issued in December 2017 by Judge Selna in the Central District of California, instead going to a jury trial.Trade MarksGuestKat Léon Dijkman looks at the recent Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in Primart… [read post]
28 Nov 2019, 10:39 am
| Feilin v. [read post]
30 Nov 2016, 2:42 am
” -- see Eleonora Rosati’s view on the important case Soulier and Doke, C-301/15. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 12:17 pm
C-572/13, HP v Reprobel) and bold lawmakers (cf. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 10:43 am
Such practical, result-oriented use of EU pre-emption has occurred in the area of economic rights with regard to the scope of national implementations of, eg, the InfoSoc Directive; exceptions and limitations (notably national private copying provisions); and independent national legislative initiatives, such as the one at issue in Soulier and Doke concerning the 2012 French law on the exploitation of out-of commerce works [here]. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am
Well Marie-Andree cited that 1879 case Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
