Sentences with phrase «owner in court actions»

The Copyright Office says (emphasis mine), «If registration is made within three months after publication of the work * or prior to an infringement of the work *, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions.

Not exact matches

The Xbox console owners filed a proposed class action against Microsoft in federal court in 2011, saying the design of the console was defective and that its optical disc drive could not withstand even small vibrations.

Truett - Hurst Sues Landlord in Winery Lease Dispute: Publicly owned startup vintner Truett - Hurst has taken the owner of its Russian River Valley winery and tasting room to court, claiming the action is necessary to prevent eviction ahead of what the wine company speculates could be a move to position the property for sale...

This helps return fundamental fairness to the system and provides a means for aggrieved property owners to pursue such action in a court of the citizen's choosing, not the government's.

Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the content provider, member or user, the removed content may be replaced, or access to it restored, in 10 to 14 business days or more after receipt of the counter-notice, at AAAS's sole discretion.

Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the content provider, member, or user, the removed content may be replaced, or access to it restored, in 10 to 14 business days or more after receipt of the counter-notice, at Science's sole discretion.

The owner of online dating site... actions claims against Spark Networks Inc. in California courts in 2013 alleging that ChristianMingle.com and several other sites in the company's portfolio of niche dating services

Upon the granting of equitable relief, in whole or in part, by a court of competent jurisdiction, the owner of an animal determined to be a public nuisance shall be liable for the reasonable attorney fees and costs, as may be determined by the court, incurred by the party bringing the action.

The owner may file a replevin action in Superior Court without court costs within 30 days of seizure to contest the holding of the anCourt without court costs within 30 days of seizure to contest the holding of the ancourt costs within 30 days of seizure to contest the holding of the animal.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has squarely ruled, Judge Batten said, that where a copyright owner could not sustain an infringement action in federal court, then the would - be defendant in a potential coercive action can not bring an anticipatory declaratory judgement acCourt of Appeals has squarely ruled, Judge Batten said, that where a copyright owner could not sustain an infringement action in federal court, then the would - be defendant in a potential coercive action can not bring an anticipatory declaratory judgement accourt, then the would - be defendant in a potential coercive action can not bring an anticipatory declaratory judgement action.

Accordingly, a variety of consequential injuries were held not to constitute takings... Nor was government held liable for the extra expense which the property owner must obligate in order to ward off the consequence of the governmental action... But the Court also decided long ago that land can be «taken» in the constitutional sense by physical invasion or occupation by the government, as occurs when the government floods land permanently or recurrently.

Defending technology company and its board of directors in multimillion dollar PA state court action brought by founder / consultant / shareholder alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and rescission; prosecuting action in NJ federal court on behalf of executive terminated in breach of his employment agreement; defending companies and their majority owners in numerous state court actions throughout NY and NJ alleging breach of contract and fraud; defending company in connection with DOL investigation regarding misclassification of employees; defending health - tech entrepreneur in connection with DOL investigation regarding unemployment insurance fraud; counseling global company and its US subsidiary in connection with various employment law matters; and negotiating numerous separation agreements.

For example, in Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank the English Court of Appeal confirmed that an individual in Switzerland who participated in breaches of a worldwide freezing order was susceptible to a claim for unlawful means conspiracy — notwithstanding that he was outside the jurisdiction of the English court (and therefore not bound by the freezing order or susceptible to an order finding him in contempt) and that the actions he took (moving monies on instructions from their owner) were otherwise laCourt of Appeal confirmed that an individual in Switzerland who participated in breaches of a worldwide freezing order was susceptible to a claim for unlawful means conspiracy — notwithstanding that he was outside the jurisdiction of the English court (and therefore not bound by the freezing order or susceptible to an order finding him in contempt) and that the actions he took (moving monies on instructions from their owner) were otherwise lacourt (and therefore not bound by the freezing order or susceptible to an order finding him in contempt) and that the actions he took (moving monies on instructions from their owner) were otherwise lawful.

In respect of a passing off claim the Court examined the elements of the action and found that the defendants failed to establish that they had a reputation or goodwill with the average HD motorcycle rider, or owner in Canada — «that the average HD motorcycle owner knows of their existence and more importantly of the existence of their trademark and associate it with the defendants and no one else»In respect of a passing off claim the Court examined the elements of the action and found that the defendants failed to establish that they had a reputation or goodwill with the average HD motorcycle rider, or owner in Canada — «that the average HD motorcycle owner knows of their existence and more importantly of the existence of their trademark and associate it with the defendants and no one else»in Canada — «that the average HD motorcycle owner knows of their existence and more importantly of the existence of their trademark and associate it with the defendants and no one else».

Research and briefing associate on a successful appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that affirmed judgment in favor of corporate timberland owner in an action involving claims of trespass by the landowner and claims of adverse possession made against that owner.

The appellate court explained that to recover compensation in a premises liability claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant knew or should have known about the danger and that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the danger, in spite of his ordinary care, due to actions or conditions within the owner's control.

Under the prior VE Holding decision, patent owners opted to file infringement cases in favorable districts, with half of all patent infringement actions each year being filed in just two courts: the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware.

This court abolished, in premises liability actions involving a slip and fall on snow and ice, the distinction between natural and unnatural accumulations of snow and ice, which had constituted an exception to the general rule of premises liability that a property owner owes a duty to all lawful visitors to use reasonable care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances [370 - 384]; further, this court saw no reason to limit its holding to prospective application [384 - 386].

In an admiralty action in rem and in personam, Lakeland Bank v. Never E Nuff (Ship), 2016 FC 1096, the Federal Court dismissed the action in personam on a US mortgage, registered in New York State, against the mortgagor, a U.S.based former owner of a 38 - foot pleasure craft and against its innocent purchaser for value without notice in Canada and dismissed the purchaser's counterclaim for abuse of process, but ordered the return of a trailer and other personal items, which had been arrested in Canada with the pleasure craft, but were not covered by the mortgagIn an admiralty action in rem and in personam, Lakeland Bank v. Never E Nuff (Ship), 2016 FC 1096, the Federal Court dismissed the action in personam on a US mortgage, registered in New York State, against the mortgagor, a U.S.based former owner of a 38 - foot pleasure craft and against its innocent purchaser for value without notice in Canada and dismissed the purchaser's counterclaim for abuse of process, but ordered the return of a trailer and other personal items, which had been arrested in Canada with the pleasure craft, but were not covered by the mortgagin rem and in personam, Lakeland Bank v. Never E Nuff (Ship), 2016 FC 1096, the Federal Court dismissed the action in personam on a US mortgage, registered in New York State, against the mortgagor, a U.S.based former owner of a 38 - foot pleasure craft and against its innocent purchaser for value without notice in Canada and dismissed the purchaser's counterclaim for abuse of process, but ordered the return of a trailer and other personal items, which had been arrested in Canada with the pleasure craft, but were not covered by the mortgagin personam, Lakeland Bank v. Never E Nuff (Ship), 2016 FC 1096, the Federal Court dismissed the action in personam on a US mortgage, registered in New York State, against the mortgagor, a U.S.based former owner of a 38 - foot pleasure craft and against its innocent purchaser for value without notice in Canada and dismissed the purchaser's counterclaim for abuse of process, but ordered the return of a trailer and other personal items, which had been arrested in Canada with the pleasure craft, but were not covered by the mortgagin personam on a US mortgage, registered in New York State, against the mortgagor, a U.S.based former owner of a 38 - foot pleasure craft and against its innocent purchaser for value without notice in Canada and dismissed the purchaser's counterclaim for abuse of process, but ordered the return of a trailer and other personal items, which had been arrested in Canada with the pleasure craft, but were not covered by the mortgagin New York State, against the mortgagor, a U.S.based former owner of a 38 - foot pleasure craft and against its innocent purchaser for value without notice in Canada and dismissed the purchaser's counterclaim for abuse of process, but ordered the return of a trailer and other personal items, which had been arrested in Canada with the pleasure craft, but were not covered by the mortgagin Canada and dismissed the purchaser's counterclaim for abuse of process, but ordered the return of a trailer and other personal items, which had been arrested in Canada with the pleasure craft, but were not covered by the mortgagin Canada with the pleasure craft, but were not covered by the mortgage.

The Texas Supreme Court ruled unanimously late last week in favor of BP America Production Co. («BP») in a closely - watched case involving two recurring issues: (1) the duty of royalty owners to bring actions in a timely fashion, and (2) the requisites of adverse possession when unleased co-tenants mistakenly believe their mineral interests are under lease (more...)

As an attorney in the Supreme Court Division of this major New York City real estate litigation firm, Suzanne handled a wide variety of complex state and federal court cases, including declaratory judgment and injunctive actions, commercial foreclosures, workouts, representation of cooperative and condominium boards of directors and representation of real estate owners in all phases of bankruptcy litigation, we well as real estate transactCourt Division of this major New York City real estate litigation firm, Suzanne handled a wide variety of complex state and federal court cases, including declaratory judgment and injunctive actions, commercial foreclosures, workouts, representation of cooperative and condominium boards of directors and representation of real estate owners in all phases of bankruptcy litigation, we well as real estate transactcourt cases, including declaratory judgment and injunctive actions, commercial foreclosures, workouts, representation of cooperative and condominium boards of directors and representation of real estate owners in all phases of bankruptcy litigation, we well as real estate transactions.

Furthermore, in documents filed with the court by the appellant on a summary judgment motion in a related solicitor's negligence action, the appellant expressly acknowledged that he, rather than the trust, was the legal owner of the mortgaged property and that the relevant mortgage documents contained his personal covenant to repay the mortgage loan.

The class action, which was filed in Quebec City and authorized on February 8, 2017 by the Quebec Court of Appeal, is intended to establish that Université Laval and its employees, as part of their teaching and research activities, infringed the patrimonial and moral rights recognized under the Copyright Act by reproducing copyrighted literary, dramatic and artistic works, making them available and communicating them to the public without permission from the copyright owners or their representatives, by failing to identify the creators of the work and by infringing the integrity of the work.

When conflicts with minority investors can not be resolved without legal action, Winstead Business Divorce lawyers aggressively handle litigation for majority owners in state and federal courts, as well as in arbitration proceedings.

The civil complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose by KinderStart.com, seeks to be certified as a class action representing the owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google's Internet - leading search engine since January 2001.

In Tenants» Rights Action Coalition v. Corp. of Delta, B.C. Supreme Court, 1997, a suite was already located in the house, and the new owners installed a half wall to divide the basement into two suites, The owners lost the casIn Tenants» Rights Action Coalition v. Corp. of Delta, B.C. Supreme Court, 1997, a suite was already located in the house, and the new owners installed a half wall to divide the basement into two suites, The owners lost the casin the house, and the new owners installed a half wall to divide the basement into two suites, The owners lost the case.

A pressing public need must be demonstrated and the property - owner must be able to contest the action in the courts.

In a recent editorial published in the Cape Argus, the chairman of Rawson opined that «homebuyers, banks and tenants all need to take action to protect themselves against the effects of the recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment that property owners can be held liable for historical municipal debts dating back up to 30 years.&raquIn a recent editorial published in the Cape Argus, the chairman of Rawson opined that «homebuyers, banks and tenants all need to take action to protect themselves against the effects of the recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment that property owners can be held liable for historical municipal debts dating back up to 30 years.&raquin the Cape Argus, the chairman of Rawson opined that «homebuyers, banks and tenants all need to take action to protect themselves against the effects of the recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment that property owners can be held liable for historical municipal debts dating back up to 30 years.»

The Court found that while the State's process for providing notice would likely succeed with most taxpayers, in this instance the State had actual knowledge that the Owner had very likely not received notice about the State's intention to sell his property and it took no further action.

The appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling, determining that the Broker had potential liability in his capacity as owner, president, or designated officer / broker for Crank's actions because the Broker's duty to conform with the Act was non-delegable.

It's never been more important than now for Florida home owners to fiercely fight back in Florida courts on every foreclosure action.

The new owner must bring an eviction action against you in court, where you can make a case for why you need more time before moving.

a) Owner shall indemnify Broker and hold Broker harmless from losses, damages, costs and expenses of any nature, including attorney's fees and from liability to any person, that Broker incurs because of (1) Owner's negligence, representations, misrepresentations, actions or inactions, (2) the use of a lock box, (3) the existence of undisclosed material facts about the Property, or (4) a court or arbitration decision that a broker who was not compensated in connection with a transaction is entitled to compensation from Broker.

In this case, the state's Supreme Court said that a house, which the owner had previously advertised to the public as having paranormal activity, was legally haunted for the purpose of an action brought by a purchaser of the home.

1992)- see above to read a summary of Walker), the court ruled that the Broker had potential liability in his capacity as owner, president, and designated officer / broker for Crank's actions because the Broker's duty to conform with discrimination laws are non-delegable.