43(B)log

AUGUST 16, 2021

Pasadena objected that, in the event of a force majeure, the MLA gave it the right to restrict PTRA from hosting the Rose Bowl Game in a venue other than Rose Bowl Stadium. There was no controversy as to whether Pasadena had an “ownership” interest in the relevant trademarks.

Fair Use 94

Fair Use False Advertising Intellectual Property Ownership 94

43(B)log

OCTOBER 10, 2023

DealMaker alleged that defendants stole its trade secrets and also alleged violation of state and federal false advertising law. Challenged claim: DealMaker’s customers do not retain ownership over their own data. The slide clearly compared the parties’ platforms. This also took care of materiality.

False Advertising 57

False Advertising Ownership Advertising Advertising 57

The IPKat

JUNE 13, 2022

In any event, the licence will determine the rights afforded to the purchase, which usually confirm that no copyright ownership is passed, and that the purchase is prevented from adapting, reproducing, or communicating the work to the public. The terms of ownership and remuneration vary between platforms.

Non-Fungible Tokens 140

Non-Fungible Tokens Advertising Advertising Ownership 140

43(B)log

MARCH 4, 2022

3, 2022) Plaintiffs alleged that they employed the individual defendants in part to manage social media advertising and promotion for plaintiffs’ baking businesses, aka La Baguette. This meant that past events and posts by La Baguette now appeared to have been posted by “Tito & Tita Langley.” DLB-21-401 (D. the page,” id. ¶

Social Media 70

Social Media Advertising Advertising Business 70

43(B)log

OCTOBER 4, 2021

For about a decade, courts had realized that IIC had gone way too far, and had expanded liability in ways that didn’t protect consumers and facilitated anticompetitive claims about false advertising. The court or appeals also commented that relying on IIC might change the available damages and relief—but how exactly?

IP 94

IP Trademark Advertising Advertising 94

SpicyIP

DECEMBER 30, 2023

[Delhi High Court] On May 23, the Delhi High Court passed an interesting jud gement on the issue of ownership of the copyright in a film screenplay and held that the copyright in the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’, lay with Satyajit Ray and on his demise, with his son Sandip Ray and the Society for Preservation of Satyajit Ray Archives (SPSRA).

IP 114

IP Copyright Trademark Intellectual Property 114