Search for: "In Re Interest of Br" Results 1 - 20 of 282
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
In re Ford 387 BR 14827 but declined to rule on the issue [...] [read post]
13 Mar 2006, 1:45 pm
We hosted #48 over at Rethink(IP) and, well, presented it in our own style.In short:We think that several popular carnivals, including BlawgReview, have become bloated, link-whore-optimized versions of the original vision for what a carnival should be - an edited review of relevant blog posts presented in a manner that contributes to thought-provoking conversation.Check out Blawg Review #48 at Rethink(IP). ...and...if you're interested, here's the rest of the story:Wake… [read post]
17 Aug 2007, 6:00 am
I previously reviewed the case of In re Bast, ___ BR ___, 2007 WL 1429481 (Bkrtcy.S.D. [read post]
30 Apr 2023, 3:59 am by SOQUIJ
Every week we present the summary of a decision handed down by a Québec court provided to us by SOQUIJ and considered to be of interest to our readers throughout Canada. [read post]
27 Jul 2012, 11:23 am
fragmentation in IEL Chair: Marion Panizzon (University of Bern) Thomas Cottier (University of Bern) and Hannes Schloemann (WTI Advisors), Re? [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 6:43 am by Jordan Furlong
In case you’re interested, I authored this week’s Blawg Review (#252) with my colleagues at Stem Legal’s Law Firm Web Strategy Blog. [read post]
28 May 2015, 1:38 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
They think they’re doing the right thing. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 6:53 am by Eleonora Rosati
Former GuestKat Mirko Brüß analyzes a very interesting recent German decision, which has tackled the application of such exclusive right in the context of linking within online image sharing service Pinterest.Here's what Mirko writes:German court: copyright infringement by ‘re-pin’ on Pinterestby Mirko Brüß A Kat pinReaders of this blog will remember the CJEU decision Renckhoff (C-161/17), which was discussed by Eleonora… [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 7:03 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  “[E]ven if a consumer’s initial-interest confusion only persists long enough to lead him to the homepage, then Defendant has ‘br[ought] the patrons   in the door. . . . [read post]