Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JUNE 4, 2024
Thus, Lady Freethinker sued YouTube for breach of contract and related claims. (A AOL from 2003, a case I still include in my Internet Law casebook. Indeed, the court agrees that “section 230 does not necessarily provide immunity for all contract-based causes of action.” ” [Discussing Cross v. .”
IP and Legal Filings
NOVEMBER 23, 2023
i] In principle, the Delhi High Court has recognized publicity rights in the case of ICC Development (International) Ltd v Arvee Enterprises (2003). [ii] ii] 2003 VIIAD Delhi 405, 2003 (26) PTC 245 Del, 2004 (1) RAJ 10 [iii] The Trademarks Act, 1999. [iv] ii] It was the first given judgment dealing with publicity rights.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
MARCH 14, 2024
In so doing, they reversed the district court that had previously held that cellular device users’ data allowances under their contracts with cellular service providers did not constitute “property” subject to conversion. As such, to the extent that there is a grievance here, it should be based in contract, not in property.
43(B)log
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
But to reach back to 2003, they pointed to Connecticut law stating that if a defendant “fraudulently conceals from [the plaintiff] the existence of [a] cause of. Nestlé then argued that, because this controversy has been in the news since 2003, the plaintiffs have been on “inquiry notice” of their claims for years.
Patently-O
FEBRUARY 10, 2022
The Federal Circuit relies upon traditional contract law principles to determine whether a particular communication constitutes such an offer. Remember the contract foundational trio: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration. Sometimes an unsolicited letter such as this may be seen as merely an advertisement. Image below).
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. Nor did respondent have advertising material or seek FDA approval.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
OCTOBER 19, 2021
It’s not possible to “trespass” an intangible asset; any legal protection for the asset comes from contract law (but the plaintiffs gave a license) or IP law, such as copyright law, which the plaintiffs aren’t invoking. Citing a 2003 Ninth Circuit case, Kremen v. .” It didn’t. Implications.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
78 
Let's personalize your content