We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 265

Harry Potter v Willy the Wizard

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 30 2010

In Paul Gregory Allen (acting as trustee of Adrian Jacobs (deceased)) v Bloomsbury Publishing plc 2010 EWHC 2560 (Ch) Mr Justice Kitchin denied a summary judgment application against claims that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire infringed the copyright in Willy the Wizard

FCC adopts MedRadio Service for wireless medical devices

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2009

The FCC also proposed new rules for implantable wireless neuromuscular micro-stimulation devices

Alleged breach of implied-in-fact contract for use of a television show idea not preempted by Copyright Act

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 31 2012

In vacating a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss a breach of contract action against a television studio, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Copyright Act does not preempt a breach of an implied-in-fact contract that included a promise to pay for an idea

“Communication to the public”: CJEU finds it does not include live performances or direct presentations of copyrighted work

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • January 12 2012

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has once again considered the meaning of “communication to the public” under Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive (200129EC

The “innocent” copying defence: only applicable to works out of copyright

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 30 2012

In David Hoffman v Drug Abuse Resistance Education (UK) Ltd 2012 EWPCC 2, the Patents County Court of England and Wales assessed the use of the “innocent copying” defence under Section 97 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

No compulsory license for internet streaming

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 31 2012

In an appeal of a preliminary injunction against ivi, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that internet streaming services are not entitled to compulsory licenses under 17 U.S.C. 111 of the Copyright Act for broadcast TV retransmissions

FTC updates guidelines for making proper disclosures in digital advertising

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 22 2013

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released updated guidance on how to make online advertising and marketing disclosures "clear and conspicuous"

“Situs of the injury” for exercising personal jurisdiction over defendant for online copyright infringement is location of copyright owner

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 29 2011

In a decision favorable to copyright owners based in the state of New York, the New York State Court of Appeals held that in copyright infringement cases involving the uploading of copyrighted literary works onto the internet, the situs of the injury for purposes of determining personal jurisdiction under New York's long-arm jurisdiction statute is the location of the copyright holder and not the location of the infringing conduct

The bubble bursts for O2

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • June 30 2008

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision, on 12 June 2008, in O2 Holdings Limited and O2 (UK) Ltd v Hutchinson 3G UK Limited 2008 C-53306 provides new guidance on the use of competitors’ trade marks in comparative advertising

Ravens’ fair use defense won’t fly

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 28 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, reversing the district court, found that the NFL’s Baltimore Ravens’ unauthorized use of its previously adjudicated infringing logo design in highlight film was not a fair use

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy