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 135

Recent decisions narrow scope of liability under Video Privacy Protection Act

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 27 2015

Two significant decisions under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) in recent weeks have provided new defenses to companies alleged to have run

Unlike Inspector Clouseau, Pink Panther heirs fail to stumble on favorable theory

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 30 2008

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a decision against the heirs of the man who created the Pink Panther and granted copyright ownership to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Inc

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

Broad but definite license agreement on Eminem masters means $$

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reversing a district court decision, held that Eminem’s record label improperly calculated royalties in connection with the exploitation of Eminem’s sound recordings as digital downloads and ringtones

First Amendment protects use of third-party’s trademark in video game

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 30 2014

Confirming that video games, including customizable multi-player games, qualify as expressive works entitled to First Amendment protection, a

False advertising injunction upheld; it’s all good and good for you

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 28 2011

In a case involving nutritional claims associated with baby formula, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a $13.5 million jury verdict won by a generic baby formula producer and permanent injunction for false advertising against its longtime legal foe, brand name baby formula producer Mead Johnson

Boop-oop-a-doop oops! Family of Betty Boop creator loses infringement claims due to flawed chain of title

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that the family of the creator of the 1930s cartoon character Betty Boop lacked the requisite copyright or trademark rights to prevent a company from selling merchandise featuring the Betty Boop image

A combination of non-conclusory factual allegations satisfies Twombly for a Sherman Act 1 claim and can proceed to trial

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently reversed a district court decision dismissing a complaint alleging the defendants conspired to fix prices of digital music in violation of the Sherman Act 1

Clip from The Ed Sullivan Show in musical Jersey Boys was fair use

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 29 2013

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the use by a musical production company in the musical Jersey Boys of a seven-second

Alien v. Predator; who prevails in copyright dispute?

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 29 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld an order granting summary judgment on copyright and breach of contract claims against Alien vs. Predator film (AVP) creators, concluding that the alleged similarities between the plaintiffs’ screenplay and the film in issue were insufficient to create factual issues from which a reasonable juror could find actual copying or improper appropriation