Search for: "Hoge v. Hoge" Results 61 - 80 of 96
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jun 2015, 2:25 am
*********************************The second is Case C-160/15 GS Media, this being a reference from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, The Netherlands to which the IPKat has already alluded here and here. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 3:56 pm by Jeremy
*********************************The second is Case C-160/15 GS Media, this being a reference from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, The Netherlands to which the IPKat has already alluded here and here. [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 12:08 pm by Jeanne Huang
Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Schlunk decided by the Supreme Court of the US and Segers and Rufa BV v. [read post]
14 Jan 2008, 2:52 am
  Problems may ensue:"In a recent legal malpractice case, Mattingly v. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 11:15 am
The decision (which you can access here) is Case C-119/10 (Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH). [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 5:07 am
There was only one hope for Realchemie now: an appeal on a point of law to the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands). [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 9:32 pm
Yesterday, the ECJ delivered its judgments in cases C-189/08 (Zuid-Chemie BV v. [read post]
11 Sep 2014, 7:42 am
Do those criteria leave room for the criterion developed in Netherlands national law to the effect that there is no longer any question of exhaustion on the sole ground that the reseller has given the reproductions a different form and has disseminated them among the public in that form (judgment of the Hoge Raad of 19 January 1979 in Poortvliet, NJ 1979/412)? [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 7:40 am
Louis Vuitton v Nadia Plesner). [read post]
19 Feb 2012, 1:55 pm
 It's Case C-2/12 Trianon Productie BV v Revillon Chocolatier SAS, a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (the Dutch Supreme Court). [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 9:00 pm by Karel Frielink
Soms dient zich een bijzonder geval aan, zoals de zaak die speelde voor de President van de Rechtbank Amsterdam (23 april 1992; rolnummer KG 92/847 V). [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 4:15 am
They still do, despite that decision, see the ruling of the Hoge Raad (Dutch Supreme Court) on 30th November 2007 in Roche v Primus following the ruling of the ECJ. [read post]