2003 Contracts Licensing 
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.
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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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. .”
The IPKat
AUGUST 3, 2022
The songs, songwriters and the rightsholders Kelis is the performer of a song called “ Milkshake ” that was released in 2003. These rights are often owned by different people, and are governed by contracts, so who owns what and how much they earn depends on the agreement between the parties. Their argument is: 'Well, you signed it.’
IPilogue
OCTOBER 4, 2022
Her song “Heated” was labeled “ableist” and “offensive” from listeners for using the word “spazz,” and many more were heated about “Energy,” interpolated Kelis’ 2003 R&B favourite, “Milkshake.”. Beyoncé’s new album released on July 29, 2022, Renaissance, was the subject of a lot of backlash this month.
The IP Law Blog
MARCH 23, 2023
Evox Productions creates and licenses images of cars. In 2003, it licensed its images to Chrome Data Solutions, LP, for a five-year period. Evox also tried to argue that because the license agreement with Chrome had expired years earlier, the provision shortening the statute of limitations period no longer applied.
Patently-O
MAY 2, 2022
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. ” On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that those contract provisions do not necessarily indicate any intent to experiment with the system design or to ensure that the invention works.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
105 
Let's personalize your content