Search for: "Franke v. Claus"
Results 1 - 13
of 13
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jan 2016, 1:34 am
.* ‘Le Journal d’Anne Frank’: sufficiently distinctive to be a trade mark, says OHIM Fourth Board of AppealIs the title of a (well-known) book, ie The Diary of Anne Frank, distinctive enough to be registered as a trade mark for (among other things) ... books? [read post]
8 Dec 2016, 8:47 am
” I guess the court did not find the testimony of Frank Church credible. [read post]
8 Dec 2016, 8:47 am
” I guess the court did not find the testimony of Frank Church credible. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 2:47 pm
I also must say that I liked the frankness of the comments from the trial judge -- Judge Foor up in Solono County: "This statement of probation that he accepts responsibility for his actions, in this court's opinion, that's a joke. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 1:31 am
Never too late 78 [week ending on Sunday 27 December] – Zer-sum claim and lookalike products | 2015 Copyright Awards | Santa Claus and Section 52 | Jani writes on Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited | IP Hairballs | Actavis v Eli Lilly | Power outage at USPTO | Santa's GC resigns | Pet rock and IP. [read post]
19 Jan 2016, 2:12 am
| Recovery for pecuniary loss and moral prejudice | EU Trade Secrets Directive | Journal d’Anne Frank as a trade mark?! [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 7:09 am
| Saturday Sundries | [week ending Sunday 19 November] Birss J in Accord v Research Corporation Technologies attempts to cut the red tape on the right to claim priority | Looking for answers on ANSERA | Speech from European Judges Forum: But Sir Robin, let's be frank, we will put (just to be short), in Milan the Central Court... [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 1:04 pm
Frank R. [read post]
30 Jul 2011, 12:28 pm
The case is Business Roundtable v. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 9:01 pm
Perry and McCreary County v. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 11:00 pm
In Marbury v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am
In Europe, The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the consent of a copyright holder does not cover the distribution of an object incorporating a work where that object has been altered after its initial marketing to such an extent that it constitutes a new reproduction of that work (Case C‑419/13, Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright) with Eleonora opining that the decision means that that there is no such thing as a general principle of… [read post]
16 Jan 2024, 8:05 am
For example, in the Bosnia v. [read post]
