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 457

Mil-Spec Monkey, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 1 2014

District court grants summary judgment in favor of publisher of military-action video game Call of Duty: Ghosts on trademark infringement claims

Panoramic Stock Images, Ltd v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 1 2014

District court denies textbook publisher McGraw-Hill's motion for summary judgment on its statute of limitations defense to stock photography

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

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 12 2013

First Circuit affirms judgment in favor of recording companies, holding that statutory damage award of $675,000 for willfully infringing 30

Mattel v. MGA Entertainment

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 1 2013

Ninth Circuit vacates jury verdict and related damages, fees and costs award in connection with MGA’s misappropriation of trade secrets counterclaim, finding that that counterclaim was not compulsory and not permissible, and affirms attorneys’ fees and costs awarded to MGA under the Copyright Act

Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 25 2010

Ninth Circuit holds that adult filmmaker’s right of publicity claim under California state law is preempted by the federal Copyright Act and that the district court erred in entering judgment as a matter of law that plaintiff employee lacked standing to sue for infringement under the “work for hire” doctrine where plaintiff employer and plaintiff employee were one and the same

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

Lenz v. Universal Music Corporation

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 6 2013

District court denies parties’ motions for cross summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of misrepresentation under the DMCA, which claim is based on defendant's takedown notice for plaintiff's YouTube video of her toddler dancing to the Prince song Let's Go Crazy, finding that defendant's failure to include a fair use analysis in its takedown review did not constitute subjective willful blindness, and that plaintiff was not precluded as a matter of law from recovering damages in connection with getting her video restored

Agence France Presse v. Morel

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • France, USA
  • -
  • August 18 2014

District court upholds jury's award of maximum statutory copyright damages of $1.2 million, plus $20,000 in DMCA damages, finding sufficient evidence

Siegel, et al. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., et al.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 19 2009

District court holds that plaintiffs, heirs of one of the co-creators of the Superman character, successfully terminated certain prior grants in copyrights and recaptured the rights to several Superman-related works from the 1930s and 40s, including portions of Superman comic books and two weeks’ worth of daily newspaper strips; however, the court ruled that the remaining Superman material at issue in the litigation was created as a work made for hire under the Copyright Act of 1909, and that ownership of such material remains solely with defendants