Search for: "ONE NUMBER CORPORATION v. GOOGLE INC."
Results 1 - 20
of 242
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Aug 2014, 5:20 pm
Google contended that it was not, relying on the English decisions of in Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corporation [2009] EWHC 1765 and Tamiz v Google Inc [2012] EWHC 449. [read post]
25 Feb 2016, 12:45 am
In Galloway v William Frederick Frazer, Google Inc t/a YouTube and others, Mr Justice Horner in the High Court of Northern Ireland refused an application by Google Inc. [read post]
14 Nov 2015, 4:04 pm
Google’s Blogger service was owned and operated by Google Inc – a corporation based in Delaware, USA. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 1:49 am
The joint judgment in two separate claims against Google, is the first time the English courts have had to rule on the application of the ‘right to be forgotten’ principle following the decision in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja Gonzalez (Case C-131/12). [read post]
8 Sep 2009, 7:40 pm
” Authors’ Guild v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 2:05 am
Background Following the seminal case of Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311, this is the second significant piece of litigation arising from Google’s use of the so-called “Safari Workaround” in 2011-2012. [read post]
19 Nov 2017, 5:45 am
Over Google’s objections, in Equustek Solutions Inc. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 8:09 pm
[51] Google is a for-profit corporation and one of the most successful technology businesses of the modern era. [read post]
12 Jul 2014, 5:42 pm
References The UK case: Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) (Vidal-Hall, Hann and Bradshaw v Google Inc);http://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Vidal-Hall-v-Google.pdf The ECJ Judgment: C-131/12 Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González” can be found onhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf? [read post]
20 Feb 2016, 3:30 am
Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. [read post]
5 May 2021, 9:07 am
Lloyd then pointed to a number of Australian, Canadian and New Zealand cases where representative actions had been permitted absent a statutory framework, including Carnie v Esanda Finance Corporation, Canada Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 9:10 pm
(“Google”), IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., and Target Corporation (collectively, the “Google Defendants”) alleging infringement of U.S. [read post]
15 Apr 2021, 10:51 am
Argument Pending: One final case is set to be argued this term: Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 5:48 am
Tax Court (Tax Court No. 015675-11 BMC Software Inc. v Commissioner of Internal Revenue). [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 7:30 am
Google Inc., March 15, 2017, Berlin, S.B.). [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
Equustek Solutions Inc. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 8:12 am
Google, Inc. v. [read post]
14 May 2016, 3:34 am
Further below you can find a very long list of items in the evidentiary record of Oracle v. [read post]
3 Jan 2017, 8:39 am
“Pagan’s complaint names ‘Google Corporation’ as the defendant and asserts that Google defamed him by publishing false information regarding his criminal record. [read post]
20 Nov 2022, 9:53 pm
In the COVID tracking context, Apple and Google forced the world's governments to abide by their rules: democratically unaccountable corporations. [read post]
