Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-5 of 5
Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., no. CV-06-6229 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2012)
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- December 13 2012
Max Fleischer, the head of Fleischer Studios, Inc. (“Original Fleischer”), created the Betty Boop character in the 1930s and developed a number of Betty Boop cartoon films
Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 2011 WL 4005350 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2011)
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- November 2 2011
In the latest in a series of video-game avatar cases, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment to Electronic Arts, Inc. (“EA”), finding its use of a former football player’s likeness in its annual NCAA Football video games was fully protected noncommercial speech
Masters Software, Inc. v. Discovery Commc’ns, Inc
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- August 30 2010
The Western District of Washington issued a preliminary injunction against defendant Discovery Communications, prohibiting it from using CAKE BOSS as the title of its reality television program about baker Buddy Valastro and his bakery in New Jersey beyond the third season
Rin Tin Tin, Inc. v. First Look Studios, Inc.
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 21 2010
The Southern District of Texas found use of "Finding Rin Tin Tin: The Adventure Continues" as the title for a film about the famous dog Rin Tin Tin was a fair use of plaintiff’s RIN TIN TIN mark registered for German Shepherd dogs of Rin Tin Tin lineage
Roxbury Entm’t v. Penthouse Media Group Inc.
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 21 2010
In a case considering the interplay between the First Amendment and the Lanham Act, the Central District of California ruled that the First Amendment is a complete defense to Lanham Act claims involving artistic works where the mark has at least some artistic relevance to defendant’s underlying work and defendant’s use does not explicitly mislead as to the source or content of the work
