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

Refine your search

Content type

Tags

Firm name

Author

365 results found

Article

Squire Patton Boggs | USA | 8 Jun 2017

Uncharted Waters: ITC Administrative Law Judge Recommends $37 Million Penalty For Prohibited Fish-Finder Sales

In an enforcement proceeding stemming from the ITC’s December 2015 decision in Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-921, ALJ David

Article

Clayton Utz | Australia | 18 Aug 2016

Registering designs for new products can be a fan-tastic way to protect yourself

Businesses intending to sell products embodying a new design should consider registering that design with IP Australia, if they want to stop

Article

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP | Canada | 9 Nov 2011

All manner of claims in this website misuse case

The BC Supreme Court’s decision in Century 21 Limited Partnership v Rogers Communications Inc., 2011 BCSC 1196, sounds like a law-school mooting problem, given the number of issues it covers.

Article

Aird & Berlis LLP | Aird & McBurney LP | Canada | 21 Sep 2011

Century 21 v. Rogers: a look at online copyright infringement and breach of contract

The internet is not a law-free zone where anything goes.

Article

Foley & Lardner LLP | USA | 21 Apr 2011

The Federal Circuit orders en banc consideration of joint infringement liability

On April 20, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed to address the question of whether and under what circumstances there can be joint liability for patent infringement.

Article

White & Case LLP | USA | 10 Dec 2010

The risk of sending cease and desist letters pre-filing in patent litigations

In the US, Japan and other countries, it is common practice for a rights holder to send cease and desist letters to a third party believed to be infringing its intellectual property rights.

Article

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave) | USA | 16 Nov 2009

Practical strategies for developing open source compliance programs: why compliance (increasingly) matters

The legal risks of open source software need not be any greater than the legal risks of proprietary software if you pay proper attention and take action.

Article

Loeb & Loeb LLP | USA | 5 Aug 2009

Ortiz v. Guitian Brothers Music, Inc

In a copyright infringement suit involving a movie soundtrack, court holds (1) a nonexclusive license can be oral; (2) where the dispute turns on whether there is a license at all, the burden is on the alleged infringer to prove the existence of the license; (3) absent consideration, a nonexclusive license is revocable; and (4) by instituting a copyright infringement action, plaintiff revoked any license that may have existed between the parties.

Article

Norton Rose Fulbright | Australia | 25 Jun 2009

High Court decision thaws copyright protection for data compilations

In the landmark copyright case of IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (2009) 254 ALR 386 (IceTV case), the High Court unanimously held that IceTV did not infringe copyright by reproducing individual items of time and title information from Nine Network’s weekly television schedules.

Article

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP | Netherlands, European Union | 15 Apr 2008

Two stripes and you're out - ECJ finds decorative use of stripes can still be an infringement of adidas's three-stripes mark and that the "availability" argument does not apply

The general public interest in ensuring that there is availability of certain signs for commercial use (that is a consideration for the assessment of registrability or revocation) is not relevant to considerations of the extent of protection afforded to a mark in terms of the likelihood of confusion (Article 5(1)(b) Trade Marks Directive (Directive); section 10(2) Trade Marks Act 1994 (Act)) or assessment of unfair advantage (Art.5(2) Directive; section 10(3) Act), nor could it be used as a defence in relation to the limitation of the effects of a trade mark under unless the sign used specifically related to the kind, quality or nature of the goods etc (Art. 6(1)(b) Directive; section 11(2) Act).

Previous page 1 2 3 ...