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 140

Bridgeport Music, Inc, et al v UMG Recordings, Inc, et al
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • November 11 2009

Sixth Circuit affirms a jury verdict which found defendants willfully infringed plaintiff’s musical composition copyright; court rejects defendants’ argument that district court erred in jury instructions about substantial similarity, fair use and willful infringement


Jordan v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment Inc., et al
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • December 16 2009

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that plaintiff was time-barred under the Copyright Act from suing for co-ownership of defendant’s copyright because more than three years had elapsed since defendant registered with the Copyright Office; court also holds that the copyright registration solely in defendant’s name was sufficient to put the plaintiff on constructive notice that defendant claimed sole ownership in the work


Miller v. Facebook, Inc.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • June 9 2010

District court holds that plaintiff adequately pleaded copyright infringement against defendant software publisher and contributory copyright infringement against defendant social networking website Facebook, where the defendant publisher distributed his allegedly infringing software through Facebook, and Facebook failed to remove the software from its website after receiving notice of the infringement


Opportunity Knocks, Inc. v. Maxwell, et al
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • June 3 2009

Plaintiff and defendants worked together on creating cartoon maps of several U.S. cities including Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Telluride, Colorado


Collectable Promotional Products, Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • June 10 2009

The district court denied a motion for summary judgment by defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. on plaintiff’s trademark infringement and unfair competition claims


The Weinstein Company v. Smokewood Entertainment Group, LLC
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • October 7 2009

In a breach of contract action, the district court grants defendant producer’s motion to dismiss claims by The Weinstein Company, holding that parties’ oral negotiations for licensing and distribution rights to the motion picture Push, allegedly confirmed by an email exchange, do not constitute a writing that satisfies Section 204 of the Copyright Act


MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. et al.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • February 11 2009

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (Blizzard) is the creator and operator of the popular online computer game World of Warcraft (WoW


Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • June 9 2010

Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of plaintiffs’ state law claims for breach of implied contract and breach of confidence on grounds that such claims are preempted by the Copyright Act


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


Siegel, et al. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., et al
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • November 18 2009

Court denies defendants’ motion for reconsideration in copyright infringement action involving the Superman character and works; court holds that plaintiffs’ termination notice with respect to certain works, which did not contain certain required information, was still effective as to those works because the omissions were “harmless error”