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 100

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


Dunn v. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • May 10 2013

California Court of Appeal affirms judgment in favor of defendant DreamWorks Animation on plaintiff’s breach of implied-in-fact contract claim


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


CBS Interactive Inc. v. National Football League Players Association, Inc., et al
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • May 6 2009

Defendant National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) acts as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for active players in the National Football League (NFL). Individual NFL players assign their Group Licensing Rights to NFLPA and its licensing affiliates


Milne, et al. v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • October 7 2009

The district court grants Disney’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Slesinger’s copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement claims relating to the Winnie the Pooh characters; the court also grants Disney’s motion for summary adjudication of Slesinger’s claims based on judicial estoppel


Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2010

The California Court of Appeal holds that Warner Bros breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed to plaintiff, Alan Ladd Jr, a profit participant in several movies, when it allocated the same share of licensing fees to every movie in packages of films regardless of each movie's value


Keller v Electronic Arts, Inc, et al
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • February 17 2010

Court denies video game developer’s motion to dismiss former college football player’s right of publicity claims, rejecting developer’s argument that its use of players' physical characteristics and jersey numbers is protected by First Amendment or public interest defense; court also dismisses Indiana right of publicity claim against NCAA for “knowingly approving” video game developer’s use of plaintiff's likeness


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


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


Hackett v. Feeney
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • April 7 2010

District court denies defendants’ motions to dismiss copyright infringement claims where one defendant’s involvement in the alleged infringement was limited to operating the hotel that served as a venue for the allegedly infringing performances of plaintiff’s play and the other defendant’s involvement was limited to providing advertising, marketing, and booking support for the alleged infringement