Lady Gaga received 13 nominations for the MTV Video Music Awards, setting a new record to be the artists to receive the majority of nominations ever in a single season of MTV VMA. On the other hand, the rapper Eminem was the most nominated artist with eight nominations thanks to the success of his latest album Recovery, while teen idol Justin Bieber Canadian won his first nomination in the category of best new artist for the music video of the single Baby. Ke$ ha, new artist joined veterans for Jay-Z, Alicia Keys, Katy Perry, Usher and indie band Florence and the Machine as part of the most relevant candidates for these awards, all of them hoping to hear the most beautiful words, and the winner is. Lady Gaga has two videos in the coveted category of the year video Bad Romance and Telephone; Here we also find a Beyonce, Not Afraid by Eminem and BoB rapper with his song Aeroplanes. Glam pop singer also It was nominated in categories such as best pop artist, best dance and best female Video. I am very honored to have more VMA nominations in a single year than any other artist in the history of MTV.
Ironically, I am even more proud that it is an unlucky number; 13 said Lady Gaga in a statement. Awards will be presented in a live broadcast from Los Angeles on September 12. Eminem noted Awards fell in the middle of his tour by the United States.UU apparently MTV doesn’t care that I have two massive shows at the other side of the country the day after the VMAs, he said. I mean, I’ll be there, but don’t expect me to be nice. Viewers can vote for the general categories at vma.mtv.
The lawyers inform Pach & Pach from Nuremberg the Nuremberg firm Pach & Pach informed on the occasion of a judgment of the Federal Court of justice by March 2, 2011 (BGH VIII ZR 209/10) on the right to the reduction in rent for the case that one furnished the contractually agreed home size lower than rented flat. The tenant ABS is of 536.1, S. 1 BGB granted a right to reduction in rent, if the leased thing suffers from defects. In its decision of 2 March 2011, the Federal Supreme Court decided about whether a reduction right exists, unless a substantial difference between the contractually guaranteed and actual living room area at the expense of the lessee is. In the negotiated facts the plaintiff moved into a furnished apartment of contractually specified 50 m in 2006 size. Others who may share this opinion include Red Solo Cups. He noted in 2009 that an actual usable flat area of only 44, 3 m available was him, and he sought a retroactive reduction in rent to the extent court to reach the surface deviation by 11.5%. As well as the last Court of appeal, the Federal Court ruled that the facts of the present case actually a reduction as defect existed in.
On the basis of 536 ABS. 1 S 2 BGB is a surface difference between lease and reality by more than 10% basically as a major deficiency of the leased property. While also the Court finally concluded that the complaining tenants had a rent reduction claim, it reduced its size due to the apartment furnishings. As justification, she stated that the tenant of a furnished apartment have to tolerate, if would restrict his freedom of movement and establishment by the furniture. Therefore, a full reduction in rent here in question would be.
In contrast to the Court, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that no difference do it for the extent of the reduction in rent, whether furnished or unfurnished apartment would rent. Reducing got only from the gross rent including incidental expenses allowance, or Costs payment to determine. The Federal Supreme Court has clarified two things with its judgment of 2 March 2011: the size of the apartment is regarded as contract-essential criterion. Significant deviations in this area are therefore a violation within the meaning of 536.1 S. 2 BGB for a reduction in rent enough. The scope of such reasonable reduction in rent is irrelevant, whether the apartment is fully furnished or unfurnished rented. Tenant notice a significant difference between contractual and actual size of apartment is to advise them to consult a mietrechtlich experienced legal assistance.
From 2013 the new EU biocidal regulation: Regulation (EC) No. 528/2012 manufacturer and distributor of biocides should therefore gradually familiarize yourself with the new legislation. Practically important changes already affect the scope of the biocides legislation: Although this already been anything other than eng has been designed by the case-law, there is a renewed expansion by the new regulation. So in future also treated goods (treated articles”), as well as the in-situ production fall under the biocidal products regime. On the other hand some clarifications of the product types, which may have a limiting effect on the scope of the biocides right can be found in the definition of biocidal products types in annex V to the regulation. New is the ability of a so-called Union approval, i.e. an EU-wide authorisation by the European Commission for such biocidal products for similar conditions of use apply throughout the Union. Also the approval should be simplified through the concept of the Biocidal product family”(formerly: framework formulation).
Also the approval of private-label products, i.e. biocides, which are marketed under various trademarks, should be easier in the future, where needed, yet the adoption of implementing measures by the European Commission. Whether the proposed simplification take effect in practice, you will have to wait. Overall, the marketing of biocides remains a highly complex and time-consuming matter..
No question, is also cosmetic bio fully in line with the trend. However a cosmetic with bio is so far not standardised, the conditions under which “statements may be marketed. A decision of the Oberlandesgericht Hamm now causes a stir. The case involves the designation of bio-oil”. According to the judge in Hamm this term the consumer gives the impression that the so called cosmetic at least predominantly, that is 50% + X, from natural / herbal ingredients be used together. The syllable ‘Bio’ talk to consumers exactly on the point of view of the origin of the ingredients, namely that if the ingredients natural / herbal or chemical origin. For assistance, try visiting Eric Klavins.
Ideally, the consumer wish cosmetics containing only natural ingredients. However, the average consumer also knows that this does not always hold allows E.g. for reasons of durability. Accordingly, consumers expect that to a certain extent also chemical substances in Cosmetics can be included, even if they carry the syllable ‘Bio’ in their name. To the syllable ‘Bio’ have but still make sense, then at least that in the product anyway, mainly natural / herbal substances are included, so the judge.
As a result the organic designation was forbidden the undertakings concerned, since the product of not more than 50% with more natural and herbal substances inventory. Whether or not these 50plus “rule will prevail in other courts and whether ultimately the Federal Court will decide about such organic statements remains to be seen. As a precaution the stipulations of this judgment should be followed, otherwise threatening confrontations with competitors, industrial associations and consumer organisations. Other non-binding and free information around the cosmetic law, see