IP and Legal Filings

JANUARY 23, 2023

Due to the recurrent copyright difficulties, which have a significant impact on an individual’s business interest, it is imperative to preserve the ownership rights of digital works. NFTs are governed by smart contracts, which divide ownership and limit transferability. iii] NFTs are limited to having a single owner.

Non-Fungible Tokens 98

Non-Fungible Tokens Copyright Intellectual Property Ownership 98

Traverse Legal Blog

APRIL 19, 2022

The ACPA is a federal law that brought trademark enforcement to the internet in the year 2000. The ACPA was passed in 2000 to make it illegal for anyone except the trademark owner to register, use, or traffic in a domain name with a bad faith intent to profit. That was 1998. No GoDaddy. No escrows. No Versign.

Branding 140

Branding Brands Branding Trademark 140

IP and Legal Filings

OCTOBER 18, 2024

They emphasised that since 2000, the plaintiff has been aware of Southern Infosys Limited’s existence. The defendant contended that the word “Infosys” is merely a contraction of “information” and “systems,” suggesting it’s a generic descriptor for the services offered.

Trademark 104

Trademark Cease and Desist Brands Branding 104

Patently-O

MAY 2, 2022

The Facts : On February 7, 2000 , the inventor’s company (MCE) offered to sell and install a butane-blending system to Equilon. On appeal, the Federal Circuit looked to the contract and its own prior precedent to conclude that a purchase agreement is a classic offer to sell. ” = = = =.

Invention 83

Invention Contracts Licensing Inventor 83

IP and Legal Filings

NOVEMBER 9, 2022

Layered by the blockchain, cryptocurrency and NFT driven Web3 technology whose decentralised approach allows buyers total ownership over their purchases in the virtual universe, the Metaverse has been steadily gaining financial, cultural and social traction in the world. Contract Law .

Contracts 52

Contracts Law Technology Privacy 52

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

JULY 25, 2022

OK, that’s a clear breach of contract, but how is it copyright infringement? It’s copyright infringement because an exclusive license is a transfer of copyright ownership. That’s important, because in order to be valid, a “transfer of copyright ownership” must be made in a signed writing. 17 U.S.C. § 201(d)(2). 204(a) ). (A

Blogging 98

Blogging Copyright Licensing Copyright Infringement 98

IP and Legal Filings

FEBRUARY 7, 2023

In contrast, NFTs and brands in the metaverse bring unique ownership considerations. It ought to function similarly to how online contracts are upheld. Information Technology Act of 2000, Section 10A.) The business may apply to register a multi-class trademark that covers both its products and services in the metaverse.

Trademark 98

Trademark Non-Fungible Tokens Branding Brands 98

Intepat

JUNE 13, 2024

According to the Indian Design Act of 2000, only those designs that are functional or used as artistic or property marks are not eligible for protection. Section 22(1) of the Design Act of 2000 addresses the issue of pirated designs and specifies the circumstances that would constitute such piracy.

Designs 52

Designs Design Branding Brands 52

LexBlog IP

DECEMBER 6, 2022

It is a fact that they do not provide anything like a formal ownership/right title, it is also a fact that they are set forth by the law, and therefore they may be judicially enforced by alternative ways of action.

Patent 52

Patent Confidentiality Invention Government 52

The TTABlog

DECEMBER 21, 2021

In its December 2018 decision, the Board concluded that Petitioner Australian lacked "standing": it could not show an interest in the proceeding or a reasonable belief of damage because it had contracted away its proprietary rights in its unregistered marks. He conducted clinical trials in 2000 and manufacturing began in 2002-2003.

Registration 53

Registration Contracts Advertising Advertising 53

The IPKat

MAY 12, 2023

Peripheral issues relating to Mr Aughton's duties under his employment contract overlapped with these three core issues. Thus, in Cantor Fitzgerald International v Tradition (UK) Ltd [ 2000] RPC 95, at p.193, and (3) was InSPC v2 copied from ProSPC, either directly or – more likely – indirectly via InSPC v1?

Copyright Infringement 68

Copyright Infringement Copyright Confidentiality Copying 68

LexBlog IP

JANUARY 17, 2023

4) Not have an application, inventor, or joint inventor that has assigned, granted, conveyed, or be under obligation to assign, grant, or convey a license or other ownership interest to an entity exceeding the income limits above. Extension for response to Office Action– 1 st request. Information Disclosure Statement.

Inventor 40

Inventor Patent Patent Application Invention 40

43(B)log

AUGUST 4, 2023

Colt and Smith & Wesson had functional prototypes by 2000, followed by dozens of startups. Regulating terms of trade also permitted, including © ownership/exclusivity/restricting investment in local productions. But none reached the market despite millions in R&D from National Institute of Justice. Canada, Bill C-11 passed.

Copyright 52

Copyright Fair Use Marketing Marketing 52

43(B)log

OCTOBER 4, 2021

slide] Annual number of TTAB decisions under failure to function and related categories: 2000-2020—you can see an increase with a fall in 2020 due to the fact of 2020; 2021 looks to have regained the momentum of failure to function. Professor Alexandra Roberts has written an excellent recent article on this, Trademark Failure to Function.

IP 94

IP Trademark Advertising Advertising 94

Intepat

JANUARY 17, 2025

Thus, the contract is void. Sci-Hubs defense contends that the publishers lack true ownership of the copyrights, as the articles are created, reviewed, and funded by scientists and public institutions. The Court observed that the writers of the articles were not given any royalty or any form of consideration.

Copyright 52

Copyright Copyright Infringement Copyright Law Publishing 52

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

FEBRUARY 13, 2023

Third, is Trump’s claim of ownership barred by 17 U.S.C. After negotiations between them fell apart, both parties sued, each claiming exclusive ownership of the movie footage. The court held that because each of them was seeking a declaration of sole ownership, the parties could not be joint authors. Taylor , 945 F.2d

Copyright 131

Copyright Blogging Publishing Fair Use 131