SpicyIP
SEPTEMBER 18, 2023
We are pleased to bring to you a guest post by Roshan Santhalia ruminating on the question of whether a cease-and-desist notice before instituting a trademark or copyright infringement suit should be issued or not. Hons) LLB from NALSAR, Hyderabad in 2011 and MSc from Oxford, UK in 2012. He completed his B.A.
IPilogue
APRIL 11, 2022
She received a cease-and-desist notice from the photographer Michael Halsband, directing her to destroy the artwork. Guadamuz was a critic of NFTs since 2011 and only got involved in their trade to understand what the fuss was all about. He authored “ The Treachery of Images: Non-fungible Tokens and Copyright ”.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
DECEMBER 13, 2023
2011) (citing to ProCD in rejecting preemption in the context of a Desny claim). And to characterize zero-click online terms of use that are imposed by cease-and-desist letter as enforceable contracts is horrible policy and bad law. There is certainly an argument that the Ninth Circuit has adopted the logic of ProCD v.
Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts
FEBRUARY 5, 2021
the ITC can also issue cease and desist orders to prevent further sales of the accused products. This is achieved through an exclusion order , which is typically “limited”, i.e. , applying only to the named respondent. [6] 6] For respondents with commercially significant inventory in the U.S., or Relating to Same & Certain Prods.
The IP Law Blog
MARCH 2, 2021
Expect more cease and desist letters referencing the Supreme Court’s explicit clarification in Romag when threatening to seek profits against merely knowing, reckless, or even innocent infringers. 21 In a 2011 survey conducted by the U.S. 4226, at 3-32 (May 2011), [link]. litigation in U.S. 1045 (2018). Economy, Inv.
43(B)log
AUGUST 18, 2021
SMRI ultimately sent one C&D in August 2006, and filed suit in June 2011. The laches defense is not available “when the defendant knew that the plaintiff objected to the use of the mark,” as “[a]ny acts after receiving a cease and desist letter are at the defendant’s own risk.” apart from the mark as shown.”
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JANUARY 25, 2024
4, 2011)) (emphasis in original). precedent, could Meta just amend its terms, send another cease-and-desist, and revisit this, or does this case repudiate that whole line of precedent? The 2009 Facebook Terms included the following clause: “accessing or using our website. signif[ies] that you. agree to be bound by these Terms.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
115 
Let's personalize your content