Search for: "Max Factor & Co. v. Factor"
Results 41 - 60
of 86
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Sep 2013, 7:52 am
Fisher v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 3:17 am
Both were on display in last week’s 8th District decision in State v. [read post]
9 Mar 2023, 1:44 pm
B.S.G. v. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 7:07 am
Several years later I met Max – incredible Renaissance man! [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 12:16 pm
The Pennsylvania case is Wisniewski v. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 5:41 pm
The Pennsylvania case is Wisniewski v. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 12:08 pm
However, some common defences against a charge of obtaining property by false pretences include: Colour of Right No Risk of Loss Applicable Charter Defences Punishment The punishment for obtaining property through false pretences depends on two main factors: The type of section 362 offence committed; and the Crown’s choice to proceed via indictment or summarily There are four ‘sub-offences’ enumerated in s. 362 and separate punishments associated with the different… [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 5:31 am
’ I would argue that whether or not the co-defendants acted independently is in cases like these not a potentially relevant factor, but a crucial factor. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 3:04 am
USPTO and Myriad Genetics (Docket Report) (Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Inventive Step) (Patently-O) (Holman's Biotech IP Blog) (Patent Docs) (Ladas & Parry) (Tech Transfer Blog) (ipwars.com) (Ars Technica) (BlawgIT) (IP Watch) (The Prior Art) US: Study suggests USPTO erred in broad claims of Myriad BRCA1 patent (Tech Transfer Blog) (Patent Docs) US: CAFC confirms written description requirement in Ariad v Lilly (IP Law Blog) (IP Osgoode) (IP Spotlight) (Ars Technica) US:… [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 7:05 am
Metropolitan Contracting Co., ‘It is unquestionably true, as declared in Haneman v. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 8:43 am
The Judge referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Adams v Cape Industries [1990] 1 Ch 433, which set out the major factors to be considered, and also pointed out the “principal test” as to whether a company carried on activities in England & Wales was whether that company’s representative located in England & Wales had authority to contract on behalf of the company. [read post]
When Is an Interest in a California Real Estate Syndicate a “Security” Under State and Federal Laws?
5 Jun 2017, 4:58 pm
Howey Co. [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 9:46 am
Co., No. 14 C 9558, 2015 WL 6407532, at *3 (N.D. [read post]
14 Aug 2016, 1:00 pm
ASCAP must now license both the ASCAP and BMI share and can collect for both writers, because “[u]nder the copyright law, joint authors of a single work are treated as tenants-in-common, so ‘[e]ach co-owner may thus grant a nonexclusive license to use the entire work without the consent of other co-owners, provided that the licensor accounts for and pays over to his or her co-owners their pro-rata shares of the proceeds. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 9:27 am
T-Online.de AG & Co. [read post]
27 Jun 2021, 2:13 pm
Similar to previous cases, such as Mennesson v France, Labassee v France, andParadiso and Campanelli v Italy, this complaint originated from the refusal of national authorities to recognise the parent-child relationship established in accordance with foreign law on the ground that surrogacy is prohibited under national law. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 5:15 am
[Max Mosely]. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 5:15 am
[Max Mosely]. [read post]
8 Jul 2009, 7:04 am
– CAFC decision in Agilent Techs v Affymetrix concerning claims pertaining to ‘microarray hybridization’ (Gray on Claims) US: Counterclaims dismissed in Alzheimer’s Institute/ Mayo patent licensing dispute over transgenic mice (Patent Docs) Products (Tavanic) Levofloxacin – UK: EWCA upholds decision that Daiichi’s Levofloxacin patent and SPC both invalid: Generics (UK) Ltd v Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co… [read post]
25 Oct 2023, 7:17 pm
Castleberry v. [read post]
