Search for: "Spain v. State" Results 41 - 60 of 897
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Nov 2009, 9:02 am by Bartolus
It thus goes further in this case than in Case C-129/00 Commission v. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 4:06 am
The UK Intellectual Property Office's alerting service has informed the IPKat of the case brought by Spain before the Court of Justice: Case C-274/11 Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 10:00 am by Douglas P. Matthews
In Expeditors and Production Service Company, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 8:13 am
Today's appeal, in Case T-50/09 Ifemy’s Holding GmbH v OHIM, Dada & Co. [read post]
11 Dec 2012, 2:19 am
Advocate General Bot has just given his Opinion in Joined Cases C‑274/11 and C‑295/11 Kingdom of Spain (C‑274/11) and Italian Republic (C‑295/11) v Council of the European Union. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 2:40 am by Milen Hristov
In its decision on the case Johannes Gerrit Cornelis van Schaik v Hoge Raad der Nederlanden  in Para  21 the Court has ruled that: ...Article 4 of the directive further provides that the roadworthiness tests, within the meaning of the directive, are to be carried out by the State or by bodies or establishments designated and directly supervised by the State. [read post]
21 May 2014, 9:23 am by Hunton & Williams LLP
On May 13, 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) rendered its judgment in Google Spain S.L. and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (Case C-131/12, “Google v. [read post]
21 May 2014, 9:23 am by Hunton & Williams LLP
On May 13, 2014, the European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”) rendered its judgment in Google Spain S.L. and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (Case C-131/12, “Google v. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 7:39 am by Christine Nielsen Czuprynski
In July 2014, the High Court (the ‘Court’) considered for the first time the implications of the landmark decision in Google Spain, when delivering an interim judgment in the case of Hegglin v Persons Unknown [2014] EWHC 2808 (the ‘Judgment’). [read post]
21 Jan 2020, 9:04 pm by News Desk
Another mechanism that might be involved in the dispersal of V. parahaemolyticus populations is the international trade of shellfish, which was suggested to facilitate the introduction of sequence type 36 into the United States and Spain. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 10:00 am by David Kopel
The statute would therefore outlaw the sale in the United States of a bullfighting video produced in Spain (since bullfighting is not legal in the United States), the sale of any hunting video or magazine in the District of Columbia (since no hunting is allowed in the District) or the sale of a crossbow hunting video or magazine in the many states which allow hunting with compound bows but not with crossbows. [read post]