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 448

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

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

Scorpio Music S.A. v. Willis

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 16 2012

District court dismisses music publishers’ declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of co-author’s unilateral notice of termination of copyright grants, holding that a joint author who separately transfers his copyright interest may unilaterally terminate that grant

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

Aronson v. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc.

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

Plaintiff Ken Aronson filed an action against Dog Eat Dog Films, Michael Moore’s loan-out corporation, for copyright infringement, misappropriation of likeness and invasion of privacy, based on the inclusion of plaintiff’s song and video in Moore’s film Sicko without the plaintiff’s permission

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

The Sheldon Abend Revocable Trust v. Spielberg

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 29 2010

Court grants the producers of the motion picture Disturbia summary judgment in a copyright infringement action brought by the owner of the copyright to Rear Window, the short story made into an Alfred Hitchcock film, finding that the common elements between the two works are not protectible

CJ Products LLC v. BTC Enterprises LLC

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

District court grants summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on copyright infringement claim related to 11 Pillow Pet designs, finding that the allegedly infringing toys were virtually identical to the copyrighted works

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

United Fabrics International, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 2 2011

The Ninth Circuit reverses the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim, explaining that the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of plaintiff’s valid copyright because the defendants did not provide any evidence denying or disputing the facts in the copyright certificate