Sentences with phrase «prove irreparable harm»
In court documents, the company called California's enforcement action «baseless litigation» that has not proven irreparable harm to stylists.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/ Not exact matches
«They will have to prove that they have experienced irreparable harm or injury from this.
Since Rogers» ads had been in the marketplace since 2008 and Bell could not prove these claims caused «irreparable harm» to the company, Superior Court Justice Darla A. Wilson struck down Bell's injunction, writing that «there is no justification for the court to interfere in the advertising war between these two large corporations.»
«The mountain of evidence we put on at trial proved — beyond any reasonable dispute — that the irrational, arbitrary and abominable laws at issue in this case shackle school districts and impose severe and irreparable harm on students,» he said, in a statement.
To the extent you have in any manner violated or threatened to violate The Math Learning Center's intellectual property rights; disclosed or threatened to disclose any of The Math Learning Center's confidential or proprietary information; violated or threatened to violate the security of any person, data, The Math Learning Center servers or networks, and / or the Websites; and / or otherwise breached or threatened to breach these Terms, you acknowledge and agree that such actual or threatened violation or breach will cause immediate and irreparable harm to The Math Learning Center, and we shall be entitled to injunctive and other appropriate relief, including without limitation specific performance (without the posting of a bond or other security and without proving damages), and you agree that we may seek such relief in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Today's ruling looks to me like some judges realized the standard they had set in the past (for good reasons, actually) was an insurmountable hurdle for Apple, so they centered today's opinion around the suggestion that «some connection» between an infringement and irreparable harm was sufficient and the made - up claim that Judge Koh had required Apple to «prove that the infringement was the sole cause of the lost downstream sales.»
Accordingly, the Parties each agree and acknowledge that any such violation or threatened violation may cause irreparable injury to the Disclosing Party and that, in addition to any other remedies that may be available, in law, in equity, or otherwise, the Disclosing Party shall be entitled (a) to seek injunctive relief against the threatened breach of this Agreement or the continuation of any such breach by the Receiving Party, without the necessity of proving actual damages, and (b) to be indemnified by the Receiving Party from any loss or harm, including but not limited to attorney's fees, arising out of or in connection with any breach or enforcement of the Receiving Party's obligations under this Agreement or the unauthorized use or disclosure of the Disclosing Party's Confidential Information.
Author: Anthony Pugh, Student - at - Law, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka In 10313033 Canada Inc. v. 2418973 Ontario Inc., an April 11, 2018 decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa relating to a franchise dispute in the Laurier Optical franchise system, the court refused to grant to the franchisor an interlocutory injunction compelling the franchisees to continue paying royalties and marketing fees because the franchisor did not prove that it would suffer irreparable harm.
A trademark owner must prove three things on a motion for an interlocutory injunction: (i) that its allegations raise a «serious issue» of infringement; (ii) that the harm caused by the infringement if it continues until trial would be «irreparable»; and (iii) that the balance of convenience favours granting an interlocutory injunction e.g. awarding an injunction would not cause any undue inconvenience to the alleged infringer.
In 10313033 Canada Inc. v. 2418973 Ontario Inc., an April 11, 2018 decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa relating to a franchise dispute in the Laurier Optical franchise system, the court refused to grant to the franchisor an interlocutory injunction compelling the franchisees to continue paying royalties and marketing fees because the franchisor did not prove that it would suffer irreparable harm.