Hylly
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Decision of the Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) 25 February 2016 - Case No. 189/16 : KCM v. Viel.
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ISSN 0018-9855 ; 48 (8)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. There is no legal basis for a judicial order allowing only the representing attorney, but not his client, to inspect documents obtained in the course of a seizure and possibly containing trade secrets of the party subject to such seizure.
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
*00001169nab a22002774a 4500
*00112033
*00520201106111834.0
*007tu
*008180123s2017\\\\xx\|||||\||||\|||||0eng|c
*035 $a24747
*035 $a(PLib-conv)0000024747
*0410 $aeng
*090 $aOMA:SA-II10
*24500$aDecision of the Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) 25 February 2016 - Case No. 189/16 :$bKCM v. Viel.
*260 $c2017.
*300 $a977-979.
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v48 (8)
*520 $aThere is no legal basis for a judicial order allowing only the representing attorney, but not his client, to inspect documents obtained in the course of a seizure and possibly containing trade secrets of the party subject to such seizure.
*653 $aSEARCH ORDER
*653 $aPROTECTION OF SECRECY
*653 $aEXCLUSION OF PARTY TO INSPECT DOCUMENTS
*653 $aPROCEDURAL LAW
*653 $aTRADE SECRETS
*8102 $aIIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v8
*852 $hSA-II10$cDECISION
*979 $a0000024747
*999 $aMikroMarc$b[Article]$x7
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.