Search for: "GAMBLE v. GAMBLE" Results 41 - 60 of 2,384
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Oct 2007, 2:02 am
Whether Community design is infringed Procter and Gamble v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd Court of Appeal “In determining whether there had been infringement of a registered European Community design, the court was obliged to adopt the standpoint of an informed user, who was more discriminating than the average consumer and was fairly familiar with design issues. [read post]
9 Dec 2018, 8:33 am by Venkat Balasubramani
Huuuge Ninth Circuit Reinstates Virtual Platform Gambling Lawsuit Against Big Fish Federal Court Rejects Online Gambling Lawsuit Against Valve–McLeod v. [read post]
5 Oct 2016, 9:55 am by Venkat Balasubramani
Added: “Valve ordered to stop all gambling-related skin transfers by Washington State Gambling Commission” (The Esports Observer) Case citation: McLeod v. [read post]
8 Mar 2014, 1:43 pm by Howard Wasserman
Of course, we might reconsider this ordering, which would require reconsideration of the comparative evil of steroid use and gambling. [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 7:18 pm by Shawn Wright
  G is for Gambling Debts in the Bankruptcy Alphabet. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 3:04 am by tracey
Regina (Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd) v Gambling Commission (People’s Health Trust intervening): [2012] EWHC 2391 (Admin);   [2012] WLR (D)  253 “Societies were not precluded from being ‘non-commercial’ and eligible for the grant of lottery operating licences under section 98 of the Gambling Act 2005, as being established or conducted for the purpose of ‘private gain’ within the meaning of section 19 of the 2005 Act, on… [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 7:00 am by Riley Macdonald
Lawsuit Against Google for Alleged Illegal Gambling Through Loot Boxes Dismissed with Leave to Amend Coffee, et al. v. [read post]
23 Nov 2018, 10:11 am by Venkat Balasubramani
Valve Big Fish’s Virtual Casino Doesn’t Violate Washington’s Gambling Statute Virtual Casino Doesn’t Violate California’s Gambling Law–Mason v. [read post]