This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Consequently, courts in India must either base their recognition of personality rights on common law or constitutional principles, which leaves several questions unanswered. For example, can personality rights be viewed as an extension of the right to privacy? In Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. &
The manufacturer can sue the seller for copying its shots; the manufacturer can sue for falseadvertising if non-official shots aren’t “accurate,” and freelancers love to sue over product shots they took and ones they think are too similar to the ones they took.]. Trademark owners will weaponize that ambiguity.
Thus, Hepp’s statutory claim against Facebook is about the commercial effect on her intellectual property, not about protected speech. The majority ends with a not-credible declaration that its ruling doesn’t threaten free speech.
Mary Catherine Amerine, Reasonably Careless Consumers in FalseAdvertising and Trademark Consumers can devote much more (or less) time to a decision than seems rational for the amount of risk/benefit in their lives. Court expects consumers to be reasonably prudent in both TM and falseadvertising.
Defendant has also used Plaintiffs’ trademarks “Seeking Millionaire,” “Seeking Arrangement,” “Whats Your Price,” “Carrot Dating,” and “Seeking” as search terms in the Apple Appstore and Google Play Store to yield LuxyApp as a search result. There’s also a copyright claim for Luxy copying the plaintiff’s TOS/privacy policy.
Changes in TrademarkLaw and Evidentiary Rules Introduction: Jake Linford Before courts admitted surveys routinely, they were concerned about hearsay. Mid-Point Discussants: Eric Goldman Antitrust is not a model of empirical evaluation at law, but empirical evidence does matter across consumer law—formation of TOS.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content