2001 Copying Copyright Infringement Marketing 
LexBlog IP
DECEMBER 15, 2021
Let’s suppose that you have not registered your copyright in a book with the U.S. Copyright Office and you find someone has infringed your copyright by copying substantial portions of your book. Can you prove that a license to produce the portions of your book has a fair market value for actual damages?
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JUNE 27, 2023
This case involves Morford’s 2001 artwork named “Banana and Orange.” The court displayed the respective artworks: Morford sued Cattelan for copyright infringement. Copying-in-Fact. No Wrongful Copying To determine wrongful copying, the court uses the abstraction-filtration-comparison test.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Olartemoure Blog
JULY 17, 2023
Barbie was created in 1959, and when she was 42 years old, in 2001, Bratz entered the scene. These new dolls captured about 40% of Barbie’s market share in five years, creating tension between Mattel and MGA. MGA alleged that Mattel had hired individuals to spy on toy designs and marketing plans.
Copyright Lately
MARCH 31, 2024
Video game publisher Atari Interactive has launched a copyright infringement lawsuit against State Farm, claiming that the insurer improperly appropriated artwork from Atari’s 1983 arcade game “Crystal Castles” for an advertising campaign as part of a “cynical plot” to resonate with fickle millennial and Gen Z consumers.
The IPKat
OCTOBER 15, 2023
The Respondent submitted that the Palais Royal dining table would not be protected by copyright since it is not sufficiently original. The Swedish Patents and Market Court (first instance) held that the shape of the dining table was the result of the author’s own intellectual creation and therefore sufficiently original.
IPilogue
FEBRUARY 28, 2023
At the request of De Fontbrune , in 1998, the police confiscated copies of Wofsy’s book, and De Fontbrune sued for copyright infringement. In 1998, the French courts ruled that the photographs were used for documentary purposes , and thus were not entitled to copyright protection.
Kluwer Copyright Blog
NOVEMBER 22, 2021
This personal intellectual creation is lacking if the photographs in question are “mere reproductions of other photographs” in which an original has been merely reproduced (copied) as closely as possible. If a copy of a computer program is published in the territory of the EU/EEA with the consent of the rightholder, Section 69 No.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content