Remove 2017 Remove Copying Remove Marketing Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Zoox

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This paradigm, however, breaks down when copyright ownership is contested. In that circumstance, the takedown notice becomes a proxy battle for a larger and likely fact-dependent war over ownership, which the service in the middle isn’t in a good position to resolve. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017?

article thumbnail

512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. McCandless

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Case Citation : Digital Marketing Advisors v. Day to Day Imports. * Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court. * 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v. Benjamin. * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? McCandless appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Moonbug v. Babybus

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

” With respect to whether Babybus’ baby character infringed Moonbug’s baby, Babybus claimed that the alleged copying related to generic features found in nature. . Day to Day Imports. * Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court. * 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v.

article thumbnail

You’re a Fool if You Think You Can Win a 512(f) Case–Security Police and Fire Professionals v. Maritas

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

So this post is 100% true, even if it might sound farcical. * * * This ruling is part of an ongoing multi-iteration tussle (in and out of court) over market share between two rival unions. I’m pretty sure the drafters of 512(f) never contemplated that it would be invoked in disputes over ownership. BONUS 2: Barz Adventures Inc.

Fair Use 104
article thumbnail

512(f) Doesn’t Restrict Competitive Gaming of Search Results–Source Capital v. Barrett Financial

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Allegedly on behalf of Barrett, an SEO vendor sent DMCA takedown notices to Google, alleging that Source Capital had copied some of Barrett’s copyrighted material. Prior Posts on Section 512(f) * 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017?

article thumbnail

2023 Quick Links: IP, Keyword Ads

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

512(f) case in the context of an ownership dispute is sent to a jury. In 2017, Defendants’ executive assistant sent emails to Steven Sikes from SoFi seeking to schedule a meeting between Mr. Sikes and Mr. Plashkes. The post 2023 Quick Links: IP, Keyword Ads appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

IP 74
article thumbnail

Colour Trademarks: What you Need to Know

azrights

In practice, there is a constant interplay between use of identifiers and ownership of them. Enforcement of your rights prevents market confusion. Where you do not have any legal rights in an asset, as you won’t have with colour in the early days of your use of a colour, you are largely powerless to tackle competitor copying.