Search for: "People v Dyson"
Results 1 - 20
of 107
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Sep 2006, 12:56 am
Dyson: the Advocate General speaksAdvocate General Leger gave his Opinion yesterday in European Court of Justice Case C‑321/03, Dyson Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks, a reference for a preliminary ruling on a point of trade mark law from the High Court for England and Wales.Since 1993 Dyson has made and sold its Dual Cyclone vacuum cleaner, a bagless cleaner in which the dirt and dust is collected in a transparent plastic container forming part… [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 4:15 pm
On 1 December 2023, Jay J handed down judgment in Dyson v MGN Ltd [2023] EWHC 3092 (KB). [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 5:22 am
On 12-13 November, the Supreme Court (Lords Neuberger, Kerr, Dyson, Hughes and Hodge) heard the case of Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions, a challenge to the broad power of detention contained in Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 11:42 pm
Oreck Direct, LLC v. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 8:58 am
On 30 January, the Supreme Court (Lords Phillips, Brown, Kerr, Dyson and Wilson) will hear the case of PP (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (formerly VV (Jordan) and PP (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department). [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 6:46 am
Habeas corpus cases including those utilised by Dyson MR, did not greatly assist the Supreme Court. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 1:19 am
On 27 February 2024, judgment on meaning was handed down by Lewis J in the long-running litigation between the Dyson Group companies and the broadcasters Channel 4 and ITN, Dyson Technology Ltd & Anor v Channel Four Television Corporation & Anor [2024] EWHC 400 (KB). [read post]
23 May 2021, 4:08 pm
The statement highlights the strong overlap between promoting and protecting competition in digital markets and safeguarding people’s data. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm
The recent judgment in Dyson v MGN Limited [2023] EWHC 3092, in which the Defendant publisher succeeded in its defence of honest opinion, provides important authority on the interpretation of section 3(4)(a) of the Defamation Act 2013. [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 2:16 pm
People v. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 3:54 am
Comment This case is significant for two reasons: First, it tasks the Supreme Court with answering the question raised obiter by Lady Hale in Savage v South Essex NHS Trust [2009] 1 AC 653, namely “what is the extent of the state’s duty to protect all people against an immediate risk of self-harm? [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 2:21 am
On 1 December 2023, Mr Justice Jay handed down judgement in favour of the defendant in the case of Dyson v MGN Limited [2023] EWHC 3092 (KB). [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 1:29 am
This was a group of claims brought by people who had witnessed the Hillsborough disaster (some in person, some watching events play out on television). [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 1:00 am
For the reasons given by Lord Phillips, Lord Judge and Lord Dyson, with which I agree, this form of parasitic accessory liability was not a basis on which the jury could convict. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 10:00 pm
Designs can leave some people spinning aroundAlthough it is a case management decision, there are so many hints in the recent decision Spin Master v PMS [2017] EWHC 1477 (Pat) that Mr Justice Carr wants the judgment to get wider circulation. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 10:00 pm
Designs can leave some people spinning aroundAlthough it is a case management decision, there are so many hints in the recent decision Spin Master v PMS [2017] EWHC 1477 (Pat) that Mr Justice Carr wants the judgment to get wider circulation. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 7:23 am
If she chooses to deport people to states where torture is endemic, those people must be able to challenge that decision in an impartial tribunal. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:44 am
This was the riddle that recently occupied a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court in R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 7:04 am
If the same team of people was used to determine the question in Article 56, however, the effect would be to make the invention immediately obvious. [read post]
