Works matching DE "CYBERSQUATTING laws"
1
- Media Iuris, 2025, v. 8, n. 1, p. 47, doi. 10.20473/mi.v8i1.68870
- Article
2
- Tulane Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property, 2016, v. 19, p. 135
- Article
3
- Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review, 2014, v. 20, n. 2, p. 467
- Article
4
- Information & Communications Technology Law, 2021, v. 30, n. 3, p. 363, doi. 10.1080/13600834.2021.1892019
- Article
5
- Mizan Law Review, 2014, v. 8, n. 2, p. 424, doi. 10.4314/mlr.v8i2.6
- Naumovski, Goce;
- Chapkanov, Dimitri
- Article
6
- DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law, 2012, v. 22, n. 2, p. 449
- Article
7
- Denning Law Journal, 2015, v. 27, p. 204, doi. 10.5750/dlj.v27i0.989
- Article
8
- University of Cincinnati Law Review, 2017, v. 85, n. 3, p. 839
- Article
9
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2017, v. 32, n. 1, p. 137, doi. 10.15779/Z38599Z19K
- Article
10
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2005, v. 20, n. 1, p. 185
- Article
11
- Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 2013, v. 17, n. 2, p. 319
- Article
12
- Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 2014, v. 32, n. 3, p. 959
- Article
13
- Franchise Law Journal, 2015, v. 34, n. 4, p. 521
- Article
14
- New York Law School Law Review, 2023, v. 67, n. 1, p. 9
- Article
15
- University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 2019, v. 80, n. 3, p. 661, doi. 10.5195/lawreview.2019.631
- Article
16
- Roger Williams University Law Review, 2017, v. 22, n. 1, p. 327
- Article
17
- Business Lawyer, 2012, v. 68, n. 1, p. 319
- Article
18
- Business Lawyer, 2011, v. 67, n. 1, p. 361
- Article
19
- Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 2014, v. 22, n. 1, p. 101
- Article