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.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 98

Mattocks v. Black Entertainment Television LLC

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 25 2014

District court grants defendant BET summary judgment in suit brought by creator of Facebook Fan Page that promoted BET television program The Game

Facebook updates platform policy to prohibit “like-gating”

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 25 2014

Facebook's recently updated Platform Policy for developers states, "Only incentivize a person to log into your app, like your app's Page, enter a

Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 26 2013

District court grants in part and denies in part video-sharing website’s summary judgment motion for safe harbor protection under the DMCA for videos

Barclays Capital Inc., et al. v. Theflyonthewall.com

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 24 2010

After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff financial institutions on their claims of copyright infringement and "hot news misappropriation" against online aggregator of financial information

Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 29 2008

The Florida Supreme Court held that the state no longer recognizes a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy because it overlaps with defamation and “allows the plaintiff to circumvent the strict requirements that have been adopted by statute and developed by case law to ensure the right to freedom of expression.”

Capitol Records Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 13 2012

Circuit court reinstates $222,000 statutory damages award against defendant, individual, for willful infringement related to her downloading and making available through peer-to-peer file-sharing service 24 copyrighted sound recordings of plaintiffs, holding that award did not violate due process standards and that plaintiff was entitled to broader injunction

Reinhardt v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, et al

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 30 2008

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Richard “Richie Ramone” Reinhardt, former member of the band the Ramones, against Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Apple Inc., and Real Networks Inc. and others involved in the exploitation of songs authored by members of the Ramones over digital downloads of six songs he allegedly authored while a member of the Ramones

Media mindshare thought leadership series

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 1 2011

Loeb & Loeb's Advanced Media and Technology Group is proud to present the latest installment in our Media MindShare Thought Leadership Series, a collection of video interviews with Loeb & Loeb clients and attorneys discussing social media, mobile marketing, privacy, behavioral advertising and other issues of interest to Fortune 500 advertisers and advertising agencies

Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 24 2010

Court grants summary judgment for YouTube and Google in copyright infringement action for large amount of copyrighted material on website, holding that defendants are entitled to the DMCA 512(c) safe harbor because they had insufficient notice of the particular infringements

Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Hotfile Corp., et al

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 27 2011

District court dismisses plaintiff motion picture companies’ claim for direct copyright infringement against defendant file-sharing site and its operator on defendants’ motion to dismiss, but allows plaintiffs’ claim for secondary infringement to stand against both corporate and individual defendants