2016 Cease and Desist Copying Licensing 
Plagiarism Today
OCTOBER 26, 2021
Wtf is a juice demon pic.twitter.com/OxYMWEuoCq — Eli Matthewson (@EliMatthewson) October 1, 2016. If the costume isn’t licensed, why is it not infringing regardless of the name change? Bringing us back to our Juice Demon, the elements that are copied include the striped suit and tie. Why did the company do this?
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
MAY 13, 2024
As I wrote back in December, scraping claims are almost always about unwanted copying and distribution of data. However, scraping generally means “extracting data from a website and copying it into a structured format, allowing for data manipulation or analysis.” Facebook objected and sent a cease-and-desist letter.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
IIPRD
JANUARY 23, 2023
Firstly, Direct infringement wherein a patented product can be literally copied element to element (Literal direct infringement) and equivalently copied with little to minimal changes not essentially affecting the effect of the product (Equivalent direct infringement). LEXIS 111933 & 2016 U.S. 4] Adaptix, Inc. LEXIS 33521.
Intellectual Property Law Blog
JUNE 5, 2023
2] The Court’s decision affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Warhol work was derivative of the original, and noted that “the new expression may be relevant to whether a copying use has a sufficiently distinct purpose or character” but that factor was not dispositive by itself. [3]
LexBlog IP
JUNE 5, 2023
2] The Court’s decision affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Warhol work was derivative of the original, and noted that “the new expression may be relevant to whether a copying use has a sufficiently distinct purpose or character” but that factor was not dispositive by itself. [3]
LexBlog IP
MAY 26, 2023
2] The Court’s decision affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Warhol work was derivative of the original, and noted that “the new expression may be relevant to whether a copying use has a sufficiently distinct purpose or character” but that factor was not dispositive by itself. [3]
Kluwer Copyright Blog
NOVEMBER 24, 2021
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).
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
245 
Let's personalize your content