Search for: "State v. Van Doren"
Results 1 - 12
of 12
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Oct 2019, 2:59 am
In Knick v. [read post]
22 Aug 2018, 2:58 am
” [Havens v. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 3:03 am
Study: financial advisers in Canada who are not subject to fiduciary duty have personal investments similar to their clients [Peter Van Doren] Regulation can have a lulling effect. [read post]
22 May 2018, 3:04 am
” Two views of the recent case Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 7:13 am
Being of a remedial nature it is to be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose for which it was enacted (Van Doren v. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 6:13 am
Being of a remedial nature it is to be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose for which it was enacted (Van Doren v. [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 4:30 am
Interestingly, in the story that is the basis for It's a Wonderful Life, "The Greatest Gift," by Philip Van Doren Stern, the hero only ponders jumping off the bridge, but does not do it. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 11:12 am
The case, Stewart v. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 2:30 pm
All the while Maya v. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 10:57 am
But some sharp lawyers ended up successfully enforcing a derivative copyright for the film (based on the underlying story by Philip Van Doren Stern), so now NBC shows it only twice. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 1:55 pm
In Case C-244/00 Van Doren + Q GmbH v Lifestyle + Sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH [2003] ETMR 75, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (as it then was) fixed the burden of proof on the alleged infringer, unless that party could demonstrate that the effect of that burden was to enable the trade mark owner to partition the single market, in which case the burden would shift to the trade mark owner. [read post]
11 Mar 2007, 5:18 pm
In the Stussy case, Case C-244/00 Van Doren + Q GmbH v Lifestyle + Sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH [2003] ETMR 75, 8 April 2003, the European Court of Justice was faced with a tricky problem involving burden of proof of consent to the marketing of goods where the trade mark owner said they hadn't been put on the market in the EEA by the trade mark owner or with its consent, while a retailer of the allegedly infringing goods said they had. [read post]
