Remove 2003 Remove Contracts 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

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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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.

article thumbnail

E-Contract India’s present legal framework and next steps

IP and Legal Filings

The COVID-19 pandemic has also acted as an impetus and accelerated the growth of the digital market. Electronic contracts, or “E-contracts,” in the present economy became ubiquitous due to the rapid development of the internet. Meaning Of An E-Contract. E-contract forms a significant part of E-commerce.

article thumbnail

Hollow Victory? Delhi High Court Says Patents Act Supersedes Competition Act, with Shaky Reasons

SpicyIP

Taking guidance from earlier case law ( Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Additionally, Section 140 makes it unlawful to insert restrictive conditions within a contract pertaining to the sale of a patented article or in a license to manufacture a patented article or to work any patented process. PNB , Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd.

Patent 98
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.

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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. First Amendment.

Licensing 105