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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 35

Ohio State University Seeing Scarlet in Trademark Suit against Online Marketplace
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • December 21 2016

Ohio State University ("Ohio State," "University," or "OSU") recently threw the proverbial yellow flag and filed a complaint in the Ohio federal


Limited damages available under DMCA 512(f) for wrongful takedown notice
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2010

Although DMCA 512(f) allows an award of "any damages" for wrongful removal of alleged infringing material as a result of misrepresentations to a service provider, such damages "must be proximately caused by the misrepresentation to the service provider and the service provider's reliance on the misrepresentation," a district court ruled


Music downloader's due process rights violated by copyright statutory damages award of $22,500 per song
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • September 30 2010

A jury award of $22,500 per song, resulting in a total award of $675,000 in statutory damages against an individual who downloaded copyrighted music files on a peer-to-peer network, violated the individual's due process rights, where he reaped no pecuniary reward from the infringement and the infringement caused the plaintiffs "minimal harm," a district court ruled


Unauthorized sharing of copyrighted music files on P2P file-sharing network not protected by fair use defense
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2010

A party who made copies of music recordings and shared them with other parties on a peer-to-peer file-sharing network is not protected by the defense of fair use, a district court ruled


Google Books settlement would usurp congressional role in revising copyright law
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

Judge Chin found that the settlement was not "fair, adequate and reasonable," as required by the federal rules, and suggested that it might be able to be approved if it was changed to an opt-in, rather than an opt-out, settlement


CDA 230 protects blog owner from liability for third-party comment
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

The court ruled the owner of a blog is not liable for an alleged defamatory comment even if the owner viewed and approved the comment prior to publication on the blog


Advertiser settles deceptive advertising charges stemming from undisclosed payments for online reviews
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

An advertiser that paid affiliates to post favorable reviews of its product in online articles, blog posts and other online editorial material without disclosing the arrangement agreed to pay a $250,000 fine to settle deceptive advertising charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission


Notice of past infringements on online photo site does not obligate operator to proactively screen site
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

An online photo-sharing site does not have a duty to search its site for material that infringes an artist's works, even if it has received past notices of infringement of the same works from the artist, a district court ruled


No CDA 230 protection for online booksellers for internet sale of book
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

While online booksellers are immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for defamation claims arising out of promotional material supplied by third parties and posted on the booksellers' sites, Section 230 does not extend to defamation claims arising out of the books themselves, a district court ruled


CDA Section 230 protects online business review site from liability for refusing to remove negative reviews
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects the provider of an online business review site from liability for refusing to remove negative reviews, a district court ruled