Remove 2017 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. Benjamin. * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Universal. * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership. * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. 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

Record Label Sends Bogus Takedown Notice, Defeats 512(f) Claim Anyway–White v. UMG

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Despite UMG’s lack of ownership in the beat, UMG’s “content protection specialist” found the song Oi! It’s not like UMG had some colorable reason to think it owned the beat; its takedown notice was the direct and foreseeable consequence of its own incomplete tracking of its asset ownership and licensing status.

Fair Use 105
article thumbnail

Cryptocurrency in China

IP and Legal Filings

Introduction Prior to 2017, China was the largest cryptocurrency market in the world, with 80% of Bitcoin transactions, the most popular digital currency, taking place in yuan 1. With “blockchain” in their name, almost 5,000 companies have been formally registered, up from 500 in 2017.

article thumbnail

California Court of Appeal Enforces Non-Solicitation of Customers Provision in Joint Venture Transaction Involving Key Employee

Trading Secrets

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.”. In Blue Mountain Enterprises, LLC v. Owen , 74 Cal. Silvermark).

article thumbnail

marketing may be material even to very expensive/complex business purchases

43(B)log

Appian disseminated the report through its sales team, social media, and other marketing. Starting with Pegasystems’ claims, Appian and BPM argued that there was no proof of cognizable injury, and that there was no presumption of injury because multiple firms compete in the BPM market. The BPM market is large.

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 111