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.


Clear all

Refine your search

Content type


Firm name


316 results found


Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP | USA | 30 Aug 2013

Who is the most interesting man in the world?

The Mexican brewer that makes Dos Equis beer and has advertised it with a distinctive campaign since 2007 has brought a trademark and copyright


Fox Rothschild LLP | USA | 8 Jan 2013

Copyright infringement claim requires ownership of registration certificate

In view of a split of authority on standing to bring a copyright infringement claim, the District of New Jersey held on January 4, 2013, that


Fox Rothschild LLP | USA | 12 Dec 2012

Unlicensed mortgagee illegal mortgage?

The Appellate Division recently issued its decision in GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Clyde Fraser and Toye Fraser, and held that financing by an unlicensed financial entity does not render the debt instruments illegal and unenforceable against the borrower.


King & Wood Mallesons | USA | 8 Aug 2012

Tetris ruling stacks up arguments against videogame clones

Have you, like us, seen nostalgic Gen X-ers playing new versions of old arcade games on their smartphones and wondered whether these “clones” would sooner or later make an appearance on IP Whiteboard?


Proskauer Rose LLP | USA | 19 Jun 2012

Videogame app developer breaks the rules on copyright infringement

Desiree Golden, a recent college graduate, wanted to aim at the big money that can be made in app development.


Loeb & Loeb LLP | USA | 6 Jun 2012

Tetris Holding, LLC v. XIO Interactive, Inc

District court grants summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and denies summary judgment to defendant on copyright infringement claim, finding as a matter of law that defendant did not merely copy rules and functionality of video game Tetris, but copied game’s entire “look and feel” and that elements of defendant’s game Mino were substantially similar to protectible elements of plaintiff’s game.


Williams Mullen | USA | 13 Dec 2011

Hanover Architectural Service, P.A. v. Christian Testimony-Morris, N.P. architectural firm defeats former client’s claim of “implied license” to use plans for church conversion project

On November 29, 2011, in Hanover Architectural Service, P.A. v. Christian Testimony-Morris, N.P., No. 10-cv-05455 (D.N.J., 11-29-2011), the U. S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled against a copyright infringement defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, in a case providing a useful reminder on the limits of implied licenses to use copyrighted architectural plans.


Seyfarth Shaw LLP | USA | 16 Nov 2011

At long last, New Jersey is poised to pass the "New Jersey Trade Secrets Act"

New Jersey is one of the four remaining states that have not adopted some or all of the provisions of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Massachusetts, New York and Texas are the others), but instead NJ courts have relied wide range of common law decisions in order to establish a trade secret misappropriation claim.


Oblon | USA | 12 Aug 2011

Nike accused of infringing golf club design patents

The Irrevocable Trust of Anthony J. Antonious sued Nike for infringement of U.S. Patent Numbers D481,090 and D481,091, issued in October 2003, each covering a “Metalwood type golf club head”.


Lowenstein Sandler LLP | USA | 6 Dec 2010

Two wrongs may just make a right: New Jersey Supreme Court upholds employee's use of wrongfully removed company documents in discrimination action under NJLAD

In a decision that changes the landscape of retaliation litigation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held in Quinlan v. Curtiss- Wright Corporation, A-51-09 (N.J. December 2, 2010) that an employee’s unauthorized copying and removal of confidential company documents may comprise protected activity under the anti-retaliation provisions of NJLAD to the extent that the employee subsequently uses the pilfered documents to support her discrimination claims in a litigation.

Previous page 1 2 3 ...