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 1,261

Not all fun and games in copycat litigation
  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • USA
  • September 11 2014

The gaming industry (and gamers) will be watching two recent US cases with great anticipation. In these cases, law suits have been brought against

Barclays Capital Inc., et al. v. Theflyonthewall.com
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • March 24 2010

After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff financial institutions on their claims of copyright infringement and "hot news misappropriation" against online aggregator of financial information

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

Second Circuit clarifies “use in commerce” requirement for trademark infringement claims involving keyword advertising
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • December 17 2009

On April 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York of a lawsuit filed by Rescuecom Corp. against Google Inc., thus forcing Google to defend itself and its AdWords and Keyword Suggestion Tool programs against Rescuecom’s allegations of trademark infringement

Dancing babies and news bloggers two American copyright tales
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • USA
  • October 1 2008

Two recent copyright claims in the US have raised some interesting issues relating to publication of material on the internet

How well protected are your privacy rights on the web?
  • Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
  • USA
  • July 23 2008

On July 1, 2008 the New York US District Court ordered YouTube to turn over its logging database information ("Logging Data") to media giant Viacom International Inc

Vindication for Veoh: business is protected by Digital Millennium Copyright Act
  • Reed Smith LLP
  • USA
  • December 17 2009

Veoh Networks makes both professionally created programming content and entertainment, as well as user-generated content, available through its website

You twit face! Protecting your IP in the world of YouTube, Twitter and Facebook: a practical protection guide for the IP owner
  • Gardere
  • USA
  • January 22 2010

Social media sites such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook present significant opportunities for individuals and businesses to communicate with extensive numbers of people in ways never before envisioned

Statutory damages: foreign works and the U.S. live broadcast exemption
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • September 16 2009

In a class action led by the Football Association Premier League (FAPL) and U.S. music publishers Bourne against YouTube and its owners Google (The FAPL v YouTube Inc. (US District Court Southern District of New York)) filed on 4 May 2007, a U.S. District Court judge held that, because the FAPL did not register its broadcasts of Premier League matches with the US Copyright Office, it cannot claim statutory damages under the US Copyright Act against YouTube in respect of allegedly copyright infringing material uploaded by users to the video sharing site

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