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

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


Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com, LTD
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • February 16 2011

In a case regarding Jimi Hendrix’s right of publicity, the court found that the choice-of-law provisions of the Washington Personality Rights Act directing the application of Washington law regardless of the law of the domicile of the individual at the time of death was arbitrary and unfair, and declared the provisions unconstitutional


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


Goldberg v. Cameron, et al
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • July 22 2009

In a copyright infringement suit related to “The Terminator” and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” the court held that in the Ninth Circuit a claim of contributory infringement accrues for statute of limitations purposes when there has been an act inducing or materially contributing to an act of direct infringement and later direct infringements do not restart the statute of limitations for contributory infringement


Cohen v. G&M Realty L.P.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • November 27 2013

In matter of first impression, district court denies preliminary injunction under federal Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) to graffiti artists


Washington v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., et al
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • November 7 2012

California appellate court affirms anti-SLAPP dismissal of misappropriation claim brought against Grand Theft Auto developers


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


Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. Belts by Nadim, Inc., et al.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • March 18 2009

In a copyright infringement suit involving watch and belt designs, a jury verdict, an award of maximum statutory damages, and a new trial, the Ninth Circuit summarily addressed several issues relating to damages


Craigslist, Inc. v. Autoposterpro, Inc., et al
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • April 22 2009

Plaintiff Craigslist, Inc., operator of the popular Craigslist.com website, filed suit against defendants for breach of contract, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, fraud, trademark infringement under state law, computer fraud and abuse, and unauthorized access of a website and computer system