Search for: "V. Reisen"
Results 1 - 16
of 16
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jul 2015, 7:32 am
Instead, for example, they might have looked like this: According to the caption, this is an “accompanying letter from Kaiser Carl V for Martin Luther for travelling to Worms” from 1521. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 5:05 am
The IPKat has just taken a look at Case C-278/08 Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günter Guni and trekking.at Reisen GmbH, a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) dating back to June 2008 but sadly unobserved by most European trade mark-watchers. [read post]
27 Mar 2010, 8:28 am
Interestingly, the same approach referred above has been confirmed by the ECJ in a ruling issued two days later on the case Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günter Guni, trekking at Reisen GmbH. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 7:17 pm
in BrightResponse case: Bright Response v. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 1:35 am
It's getting on for five months since the Court of Justice of the European Union gave its ruling in Case C-278/08 Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günter Guni and trekking.at Reisen GmbH (see the IPKat here) -- the court's other ruling on the use of trade marks and other allusive symbols as keywords in the same week as it gave its famous ruling in the three Google France cases (noted by the IPKat here). [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 10:09 am
” In re Estate of Reisen, 313 N.J. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 3:39 am
Inc. et al.; Colorquick, LLC v. [read post]
8 Dec 2022, 4:15 am
EuGH, Urt. v. 15. [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 10:09 am
Louis Vuitton and others and the second in is Case C-278/08 Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen v. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 6:04 am
(SGI) v. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 6:50 am
Entscheidend ist, ob aufgrund einer Würdigung sämtlicher Umstände von der Bereitschaft beider Partner, einander Beistand und Unterstützung zu leisten, wie es Art. 159 Abs. 3 ZGB von Ehegatten fordert, auszugehen ist (BGE 134 V 369 E. 6.1.1 sowie E. 7 Ingress und E. 7.1 S. 374 ff.). [read post]
10 Oct 2016, 11:30 pm
Abgesehen davon, dass seine Behauptung nicht nachvollziehbar ist (vgl. www.sbb.ch), kann es nicht um völlige Gleichwertigkeit der Pendelstrecken gehen, sondern einzig darum, dass das Pendeln zur Universität sowohl vom einen wie vom andern Ort aus zumutbar ist. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 8:11 am
Furst v. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 8:35 pm
Sie reisen mit einem ‹intelligenten Taxameter› und profitieren damit vom selben Komfort, den momentan nur GA-Kundinnen und -Kunden geniessen. [read post]
16 Aug 2008, 2:43 am
– discussion of Washington Post article on Ismed’s efforts to promote follow-on biologics approval pathway: (Patent Baristas), (Patent Docs), US: Congressional fact-finding on follow-on biologics: (Patent Docs), US: David v Monsanto: Biotechnology patent ‘exhaustion’ after Quanta, Supreme Court petition: (Hal Wegner), US: Ulysses Pharmaceuticals announces issuance of patent for novel class of ant [read post]
5 Mar 2019, 2:08 am
A highly intriguing referral to the Enlarged Board, for multiple reasons: it concerns questions regarding the extent of the right to be heard (by a third party) and regarding the proper venue of oral proceedings (in the light of the much-debated relocation of the Boards of Appeal to Haar).In the present case, during examination proceedings of EP2378735 third party observations (containing objections under Art. 84 EPC) had been filed by private practice firm Jostarndt Patentanwalts-AG. [read post]
