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 328

Vijay v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 3 2014

District court declines to find that preemption warrants dismissal of all claims brought by actor in "Titanic," but grants defendant film companies'

Price v. Stossel

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 1 2010

Ninth Circuit reverses district court’s decision granting defendant television network’s anti-SLAPP motion in a defamation action brought by a television evangelist, finding that the defendants made a false statement by broadcasting a video clip of the plaintiff’s sermon in a misleading context

Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 9 2013

Ninth Circuit affirms district court order denying motion to strike, under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, right-of-publicity claims asserted by

Psenicska v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 25 2009

The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ consolidated action for fraud and other claims against the producers of the movie Borat, because plaintiffs signed consent agreements to appear in the film and disclaimed any reliance on defendants’ oral representations about the nature of the film

Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 2 2010

The California Court of Appeal holds that Warner Bros breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed to plaintiff, Alan Ladd Jr, a profit participant in several movies, when it allocated the same share of licensing fees to every movie in packages of films regardless of each movie's value

Christoff v. Nestle USA, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 26 2009

In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court holds that the “single publication” rule applies to a claim for the unauthorized commercial use of a person’s likeness and that the “discovery rule” does not apply to a claim involving the production of product labels because it undermines the single publication rule; the court remands to the trial court the issue of whether the production of product labels over a five-year period constitutes a single integrated publication and thus triggers the two-year statute of limitations when first published

Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 28 2012

U.S. Supreme Court finds FCC's indecency rulings regarding isolated utterances of profanity and brief depictions of female anatomy to be unconstitutionally vague and a violation of due process

Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 14 2012

Seventh Circuit affirms district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s copyright claims, holding that district court can properly decide affirmative defense of fair use on motion for summary judgment and that defendants’ use of plaintiff’s What What (In The Butt) song in a South Park episode was a parody protected by the fair-use defense

American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 27 2014

In light of Supreme Court's recent decision that defendant Aereo, Inc., engaged in public performances under Copyright Act by capturing over-the-air

Benay v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 23 2012

District court grants summary judgment in favor of defendants on implied-in-fact contract, finding lack of privity between plaintiffs and defendants