Remove 2003 Remove Contracts Remove Designs Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

On Sale Bar – Sales require Consideration, not necessarily Money Payment

Patently-O

On appeal, the Federal Circuit looked to the contract and its own prior precedent to conclude that a purchase agreement is a classic offer to sell. The proposal expressly stated that “ownership and title to the Equipment” would be conveyed. Sunoco’s analogy to the Supreme Court’s seminal City of Elizabeth case falls flat.

article thumbnail

On Remand from the CAFC, TTAB Denies Petition for Cancellation of "NAKED" Registration for Condoms

The TTABlog

In its December 2018 decision, the Board concluded that Petitioner Australian lacked "standing": it could not show an interest in the proceeding or a reasonable belief of damage because it had contracted away its proprietary rights in its unregistered marks. He conducted clinical trials in 2000 and manufacturing began in 2002-2003.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Once Again, LinkedIn Can’t Use CFAA To Stop Unwanted Scraping–hiQ v. LinkedIn

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The court remains skeptical of LinkedIn’s privacy-based arguments: LinkedIn has no protected property interest in the data contributed by its users, as the users retain ownership over their profiles. Irreparable Harm / Balance of Equities : The court confirms that no viable alternative data sources exist for hiQ. Eric’s Comments.

article thumbnail

Copyright Ownership of Movies and Films in Canada: Who’s on First?

IPilogue

Something has recently gone awry with the law of copyright ownership in a movie or other film — a “cinematographic work”, as s. Part I of the Act deals with the ownership of copyright in works. 13 are the only ones that deal with the ownership of copyright in works. Owning copyright is one thing; proving ownership is another.

article thumbnail

If “Trespass to Chattels” Isn’t Limited to “Chattels,” Anarchy Ensues–Best Carpet Values v. Google

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

It’s not possible to “trespass” an intangible asset; any legal protection for the asset comes from contract law (but the plaintiffs gave a license) or IP law, such as copyright law, which the plaintiffs aren’t invoking. Citing a 2003 Ninth Circuit case, Kremen v. .” It didn’t.

article thumbnail

IPSC Panel 9 – Crosscutting IP

43(B)log

Standard debate assumes semi omniscience of designer neutrally concerned with social welfare. Bespoke systems are often underutilized by their own designers and outmoded. Examples: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act. Was more heavily used 1999-2003. What if rules are largely written by the regulated parties?

IP 45
article thumbnail

A Preliminary Analysis of Trump’s Copyright Lawsuit Over Interview Recordings (Trump v. Simon & Schuster) (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Third, is Trump’s claim of ownership barred by 17 U.S.C. There is no defined segregation, either by design or by implication of any of plaintiff’s expressions of his thoughts and opinions on the subjects discussed which would aid in identifying plaintiff’s purported copyrighted material.

Copyright 119