Remove 2003 Remove Contracts Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

Not Invincible: A Cautionary Tale for Creators

Copyright Lately

Crabtree claims that Kirkman talked him into giving up co-ownership rights in “Invincible” by asking him to sign a document in 2005 that Kirkman represented would make it easier to market the work to licensees but which wouldn’t affect any of Crabtree’s rights. The Requirements for Copyright Joint Authorship and Co-Ownership.

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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. It’s sooooooo 2003. Irreparable Harm / Balance of Equities : The court confirms that no viable alternative data sources exist for hiQ.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

On Sale Bar – Sales require Consideration, not necessarily Money Payment

Patently-O

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. ” = = = =. ” An offer to license is distinct from an offer to sell.

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.

Licensing 105
article thumbnail

On Remand from the CAFC, TTAB Denies Petition for Cancellation of "NAKED" Registration for Condoms

The TTABlog

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.

article thumbnail

Maradona's former lawyer drops the ball in EUTM transfer dispute

The IPKat

The Mark eventually registered in 2003 (the Registration). Background In 2001, Diego Armando Maradona, widely regarded as one of the best football players of all time, submitted an application to register the word mark DIEGO MARADONA (the Mark) as an EUTM in classes 3, 25 and 42, in respect of a range of services.

article thumbnail

Guest Post: Third-Party Litigation Funding: Disclosure to Courts, Congress, and the Executive

Patently-O

33] And let’s not forget the elephant in the room, the USPTO, which, as the issuer of patents, has the right to ask for ownership information and the recordation of secured interests throughout the administrative process, particularly as it comes to the broad fee-setting and fee-paying authority it has over the patents it issues and reviews.