This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
From PR newswire, apparently a still from the 2001 film registered trademark For the 2001 Documentary, Monbo “organize[d] a group of highly skilled dirt-bike riders” to participate in a scripted film “that would highlight the exploits of an ostentatious group of dirt-bike riders in Baltimore called 12 O’Clock Boyz.”
And many of the sites where the data is collected also have prohibitions on automated data collection and web scraping in their terms of use. Platforms that copy online data and use it to create AI have a strong fairuse argument under copyright laws. But fairuse isn’t a defense to a breach of contract claim.
Sections 2(a) and 2(c) both protect an individual’s right of privacy and right of publicity in trademark law by preventing the unauthorized registration of a person’s name, signature, or image. Elster did not have Trump’s consent to register this mark for any goods or services. The Federal Circuit disagreed. See Sections III-V.
The PTO’s asserted justification for this total ban on registration is “to protect the intellectual property right of privacy and publicity that a living person has in his/her identity.” [10] Is the PTO capable of applying First Amendment balancing tests such as transformative use or fairuse in routine registration decisions?;
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content