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 99

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


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


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


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


Salinger v. Colting, et al.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • July 8 2009

Court grants preliminary injunction barring publication of a novel about the central character from Catcher in the Rye when he is 60 years older; court rejects defendants’ fair use defense, finding that defendants’ work is not transformative and is not a parody of Catcher in the Rye


Lewinson v. Henry Holt and Company, LLC, et al
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • September 30 2009

In copyright infringement action, court holds that plaintiff’s manuscript for a children’s story depicting children around the world saying “pacifier” in different languages and defendants’ children’s book depicting children around the world saying “peace” in different languages are not substantially similar


Henley v. Devore
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • June 24 2010

Court grants summary judgment on copyright infringement claims by plaintiffs, holders of copyrights in the songs “The Boys of Summer” and “All She Wants to Do Is Dance,” which were the basis for songs used by defendants without authorization in political campaign ads; court grants summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims


Blakeman v. The Walt Disney Company, et al.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • May 20 2009

Plaintiff, a political commentator, wrote a treatment called Go November which he described as “the Animal House of politics,” about a modern presidential campaign involving a litany of “dirty tricks.”


Yeager v. Cingular Wireless LLC, et al.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • January 6 2010

Court denies defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s common law and statutory misappropriation of likeness claims, rejecting defendant’s argument that its press release announcing a new service, that included plaintiff’s name, was noncommercial speech entitled to First Amendment protection, and rejecting argument that defendant’s use of plaintiff’s name as a trademark in press release was a nominative fair use