Search for: "People v. Marks (1988)" Results 61 - 80 of 325
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Dec 2020, 5:00 pm by Michael Douglas
Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418, 429 (Dawson and McHugh JJ), 445 (Toohey, Gaudron and Gummow JJ). [8] Ibid, quoted in RCD Holdings (n 1) [57]. [9] Ibid, [58]. [10] Ibid. [11] See, eg, British Aerospace plc v Dee Howard Co [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368; Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corp (2004) 138 FCR 496, 506; Australian Health & Nutrition Association Ltd v Hive Marketing Group Pty Ltd (2019) 99 NSWLR 419. [12]… [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 3:20 pm by Eugene Volokh
(Eugene Volokh) Michael Smith and I have just filed an amicus brief that I drafted for Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment (AWARE) in the Michigan Second Amendment stun gun case, People v. [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 1:03 am by CMS
This marked the end of the 20-year qualifying period under the 2006 Act. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 10:49 am
An even more hopeless attempt (in my view) was made to rely on Magical Marking Ltd v Holly [2008] EWHC (Ch) 2428 for assistance. [read post]
24 May 2013, 1:51 am
  People generally enjoy watching people play games well and, if there is an audience for the virtual version of a chess game such as Karpov v Kasparov, should publishers and developers prevent people from filming it? [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 2:09 am by Dr. Stuart Baran
  As such it was not a “sculpture” within s. 4 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 5:35 am
Shepherd, 420 N.W.2d 887, 890 (Minnesota Supreme Court 1988). [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 5:25 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Looked at opinions issued after 1988 revision became effective. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 1:50 pm by NL
Windsor and District Housing Association v Hewitt [2011] EWCA Civ 1096 (Not on Bailii or elsewhere. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 12:04 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  The most striking example of apparently mistaken incontestability comes from B&B v. [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 8:10 am
The consultation concerns the repeal of section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). [read post]