Remove 2003 Remove Contracts Remove Licensing Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

YouTube Isn’t Liable for User Uploads of Animal Abuse Videos–Lady Freethinker v. YouTube

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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. .”

article thumbnail

Publicity Rights Concerning Sports Athletes

IP and Legal Filings

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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

The Ninth Circuit’s Broad (and Wrong) Standards for Conversion–Taylor v. Google (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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.

article thumbnail

If “Trespass to Chattels” Isn’t Limited to “Chattels,” Anarchy Ensues–Best Carpet Values v. Google

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Plaintiffs want and expect Google to copy and display their websites in Chrome browser and Search App, and acknowledge that Google has license to do so.” We need to know more about this license. It seems like this license could be dispositive to the case, but the court doesn’t explore it more. ” Wait, what?

article thumbnail

Guest Post by Prof. Contreras: HTC v. Ericsson – Ladies and Gentlemen, The Fifth Circuit Doesn’t Know What FRAND Means Either

Patently-O

The decision is significant as it is the first by the Fifth Circuit to address the licensing of standards-essential patents and the meaning of “fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory” (FRAND) licensing terms, adding to the growing body of jurisprudence already issued by the Third, Ninth and Federal Circuits in this area. Background.

article thumbnail

Induced Infringement and the Section 286 Statute of Limitations

Patently-O

In spite of its ownership of the patents, however, a jury found that a predecessor of BioVeris (IGEN) had exclusively licensed the patents to Meso Scale Diagnostics, and that Roche was liable to Meso for directly infringing one of the patents, and for inducing infringement of two others.

article thumbnail

Once Again, LinkedIn Can’t Use CFAA To Stop Unwanted Scraping–hiQ v. LinkedIn

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

They may look to state hacking laws, trespass to chattel claims, or other causes of action “such as copyright infringement, misappropriation, unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of contract, or breach of privacy.”. __. It’s sooooooo 2003. LinkedIn appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.