2004 Advertising Contracts 
Kluwer Copyright Blog
NOVEMBER 24, 2021
Copyright contract law (Sections 31 et seqq. In another decision , from 2016, the BGH found that remuneration claims under Section 32 UrhG arise when the agreed remuneration at the time of the respective contract being concluded is not appropriate when viewed from the perspective of the time of conclusion of the contract (ex-ante view).
The IPKat
SEPTEMBER 24, 2021
The attention of this SpecialKat was recently drawn to the decision of the Nigerian Court of Appeal in Banire v NTA-Star TV Network Ltd regarding the question of authorship and ownership of copyright in photographs used for advertising purposes and the issue of image rights in Nigeria.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
43(B)log
AUGUST 12, 2021
Safelite allegedly falsely advertised that (1) “if damage spreads beyond the size of a dollar bill, a replacement will be necessary”; (2) “when a chip is smaller than a dollar bill, it can usually be repaired without replacing the windshield.” Safelite counterclaimed for trade secret theft not related to advertising.
IP and Legal Filings
NOVEMBER 23, 2023
ii] 2003 VIIAD Delhi 405, 2003 (26) PTC 245 Del, 2004 (1) RAJ 10 [iii] The Trademarks Act, 1999. [iv] Case Study 2- Cristiano Ronaldo (6) In mid-June of 2015, Cristiano Ronaldo sells his image rights to Peter Lim, who is the owner of Mint Media Company and opposing La Liga club Valencia. iv] The Copyrights Act, 1957. [v]
SpicyIP
JULY 19, 2021
Serious Comparative Advertising: Broadening the Definition. In this guest post , Sangita Sharma analyses the law around comparative advertisements in India. She contends that the ‘fair’ and ‘honest’ use thresholds under Section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Trade Marks Act should come to the rescue of such advertisements. Other Posts.
The IPKat
DECEMBER 14, 2023
In Nigeria, Airtel Nigeria Limited neglected to renew their contract with actor and filmmaker Adewole Ojo to use his photographs for advertisements. The Bill repealed the previous Copyright Act of 2004 and ratified outstanding copyright treaties including the Marrakesh Treaty. Katpost on that here. Katpost on the ruling here.
The IPKat
DECEMBER 13, 2022
The court’s decision was hinged on the fact that the applicant had misrepresented to the respondent that there was a name change when in fact, the company with whom the respondent had earlier contracted was liquidated. Some consideration of those issues here.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
98 
Let's personalize your content