Search for: "People v. Link (1994)"
Results 81 - 100
of 351
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Mar 2013, 9:07 am
(as he then was) cautioned in IBCOS Computers Limited v Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance Limited [1994] FSR 275 that while merely taking a sufficiently general idea does not infringe, to take a detailed “idea” may do so. [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 3:59 pm
"It's very, very hard to explain to people," he said. [read post]
9 May 2010, 9:41 am
People’s Sec. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 5:11 am
Interflora Inc v Marks and Spencer plc [2012] [noted by the IPKat here] established that, even if most people are not deceived, passing off can still be proved. [read post]
18 Sep 2010, 1:19 pm
” The Wikipedia article just linked appears to incorrectly note that “Oliver Wendell Holmes” put forth the utilitarian argument for this in the case of Northern Securities Co. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 10:39 am
See Canton v. [read post]
3 May 2018, 11:23 am
Behety, 32 F.3d 503, 308 (11th Cir. 1994). [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 5:00 am
Bank National Ass'n., 203 Cal.App.4th 212 (2012) Briefs: available at this link Sanchez v. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 4:34 am
Epic v. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 3:24 pm
(Links to our reports). [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 3:24 pm
(Links to our reports). [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 3:42 am
In State of MP v. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 2:26 am
Ohio 1994). [read post]
14 May 2013, 7:19 am
(Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.) [read post]
7 Apr 2012, 10:38 am
Note also that publicly urging people to fire someone for his speech, even when the firing would be illegal, is likely constitutionally protected under Brandenburg v. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 10:19 am
Brady v. [read post]
5 Feb 2011, 11:09 am
Ed. 2d 282 (1994). [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
Here’s a link to that article. [read post]
30 May 2012, 5:49 pm
” Mr Justice LeBlanc, delivering judgment also considered the principles set out by the Canadian Supreme Court in Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835 and R v Mentuck, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442 (“the Dagenais/Mentuck test”), namely that a request for a publication ban may be ordered when: (a) such an order is necessary in order to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice because reasonably alternative… [read post]
