Search for: "People v. Rose (1997)" Results 1 - 20 of 65
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jun 2012, 3:35 pm by NL
At issue was Thames Water’s liability for alleged odours and mosquito infestations affecting people living in properties near the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works in Middlesex. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 3:35 pm by NL
At issue was Thames Water’s liability for alleged odours and mosquito infestations affecting people living in properties near the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works in Middlesex. [read post]
13 Apr 2012, 11:31 am by lpcprof
Paladin Enterprises, 128 F.3d 233 (4th Circ., 1997) at 244. [read post]
3 Jun 2008, 7:20 am
Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994); Dr. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 8:09 am
 As discussed here, if considered satire, not parody, Dumb Starbucks could be liable for infringement (Dr Seuss Enterprises v Penguin Books USA (1997)).It seems unlikely that adding DUMB- provides enough distinction for it to avoid being considered an unauthorised derivative of Starbucks’ copyrighted works. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 6:01 am by Administrator
The Supreme Court of New Zealand 2004-2013© 2015 Thomson Reuters New Zealandedited by Matthew Barber and Mary-Rose Russell, Senior Lecturers in Law, Auckland University of Technology Excerpt: selections from Chapter 3: A Barrister’s Perspective by James Farmer QC [Footnotes omitted. [read post]