2011 Contracts Marketing Ownership 
Trading Secrets
JUNE 22, 2022
This exception allows a buyer to enforce non-compete agreements against a seller if the seller is an “owner of a business entity selling or otherwise disposing of all of his or her ownership interests in the business entity.”. The joint venture was formalized over a five-day period in April 2011. In Blue Mountain Enterprises, LLC v.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JANUARY 24, 2024
Gutman created a Pinterest account in 2011 and an Instagram account in 2012, shortly after she began working for JLM. However, the appellate court seems to invalidate that six-factor test: “Determining he ownership of social-media accounts is indeed a relatively novel exercise, but that novelty does not warrant a new six-factor test.”
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Kluwer Copyright Blog
FEBRUARY 8, 2024
Typically, in the case of scholarly publications, authors are publicly funded through payment under a standing contract with a university or research institute, or through project funding, including EU funding. Copyright in a work made for hire resides in the author of the work, unless the commission contract provides otherwise.
43(B)log
DECEMBER 26, 2022
for unlawfully manufacturing, importing, advertising, marketing, selling, and distributing unauthorized, counterfeit versions of its popular CAKE brand of hemp-derived Delta-8 products. But the distribution right does not include “the mere transportation of goods without a transfer or sale of ownership interest in the goods.”
IP and Legal Filings
FEBRUARY 7, 2023
Several large corporations have already begun developing new marketing efforts for this new digital environment after realising the enormous potential that exists here. Leading companies have entered the metaverse’s expanding virtual market and sought trademark protection in India under NICE Classification Classes 9, 35, 36, and 42.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
FEBRUARY 13, 2023
Third, is Trump’s claim of ownership barred by 17 U.S.C. After negotiations between them fell apart, both parties sued, each claiming exclusive ownership of the movie footage. The court held that because each of them was seeking a declaration of sole ownership, the parties could not be joint authors. 1332 ].
IP and Legal Filings
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
At some point, the Plaintiffs decided to expand their business into European markets. When in 2011, the Defendant Vuillemin wanted to retire, the parties started negotiations for the Plaintiff to purchase the Defendant companies but the said negotiations faultered.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
98 
Let's personalize your content