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
In 2002, the first well-known Spider-Man movie was filmed by Columbia Pictures, a division of Sony Entertainment. However, Marvel had no right to unilaterally retain Spider-Man’s copyright unless Sony decided to terminate the contract—which seemed unlikely to happen. A plot twist occurred in 2008 after Marvel released Iron Man.
Trade mark ownership is an important consideration for any business. Unfortunately however, while seemingly obvious, the concept of ownership is sometimes overlooked and can be more complex than originally imagined. At this point, it may be too late! Let’s start with the legislation – a very good place to start.
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. The proposal expressly stated that “ownership and title to the Equipment” would be conveyed. 2002) (offer to make a “remote database object. Allen Eng’g Corp.
Creation and Perfection of Security As a quick background to how security interests are created and collateral is used- an obligation is secured by the means of a contract- this contract leads to creation of a security right. However, mere creation is not sufficient for protecting the interests of a creditor.
The court remains skeptical of LinkedIn’s privacy-based arguments: LinkedIn has no protected property interest in the data contributed by its users, as the users retain ownership over their profiles. case in 2002 to the Points Guy case in 2022. Eric’s Comments. Verio, Inc.
Illyrian Import claimed to be the exclusive authorized distributor and brand agent of a company ("GKS") that continuously sold GJERGJ KASTRIOTI SKËNDERBEU and SKËNDERBEU brandy in the United States since 2002. GKS and Opposer cannot contract around the legal principle that a licensor’s use does not inure to the benefit of the licensee.
Ginsburg began by noting that in 2002 Professor Bill Cornish delivered the Horace S. This examined the problem of authors’ remuneration: authors’ contracts tend to result in disproportionately low revenues relative to the returns of investors and intermediaries. The full lecture is available on YouTube. A summary is offered below.
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.
ii] With India steadily coming to grips with concept of digital currency, it is bound to raise questions of ownership, legal protection and Intellectual Property law’s role in as it has been said ‘growth to the moon.’. India’s Crypto Saga. There is special act in place in India for the regulation of Cryptocurrency. Conclusion.
[Delhi High Court] On May 23, the Delhi High Court passed an interesting jud gement on the issue of ownership of the copyright in a film screenplay and held that the copyright in the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’, lay with Satyajit Ray and on his demise, with his son Sandip Ray and the Society for Preservation of Satyajit Ray Archives (SPSRA).
Partly in response to NJ’s 2002 law—once there’s a smart gun, manufacturers have to switch to it w/in 30 months, though NJ backed off and just required retailers to stock it, but still infuriated gun rights advocates who boycotted Colt and Smith & Wesson who then got out of the market entirely. Canada, Bill C-11 passed.
This is achieved through a provision under which contracting parties may require applicants to file information on traditional cultural expressions and traditional knowledge relevant to the eligibility for registration of the design. On January 16, the Delhi High Court in Saga Musica Private Limited vs Roger David and Ors.
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. 1332 ].
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