Kluwer Copyright Blog
APRIL 22, 2024
Mango, in turn, sustained in its defence that (i) as the rightful owner of the physical Paintings, it was entitled to display them in public, and that (ii) the creation of digital works (i.e. Therefore, the moral right of “disclosure” had already been exhausted. an exploitation that caused them no harm).
The IPKat
FEBRUARY 20, 2024
One of Mango's virtual fashion week runways ( Mango ) The Court's ruling Moral rights The Court began by examining the moral right of dissemination under Spanish law, and found that - seeing as the relevant works had already been displayed to the public at large - such rights had been exhausted, and there was no further infringement.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
LexBlog IP
AUGUST 30, 2023
The third defendant was licensed to produce and market the disputed foods and spices under its own name and at its own expense, paying a fixed fee to the plaintiff for each individual product sold. 7) CJEU, C-406/2010, ECLI:EU:C:2012:259, paragraph 33. Emphasis added.) 5) Supreme Court 484/2020. (6)
JIPL Online
APRIL 9, 2021
x] In fact, on the contrary, memes can operate as a source of marketing and a way to garner interest in creative works in a funny, generationally relevant way. xi] There are countless articles and marketing studies directing corporations on how to market via memes to reach the maximum level of engagement. 511, 523 (2012).
IP and Legal Filings
JANUARY 23, 2023
Following the 2012 revision to the copyrights Act, it was made clear that Internet activities were also covered by the copyright law. Parallel to this, Non-Fungible Tokens, often known as NFTs, have seen tremendous growth as more and more people enter the market.
IP and Legal Filings
FEBRUARY 20, 2024
” The court ruled that the cricket player’s image rights were not violated since individuals have the right to conduct their business under their own name, as long as they do not engage in any activities that might cause confusion with another person’s business, and as long as they do so in good faith. Rajagopal v.
SpicyIP
DECEMBER 30, 2023
The Court reasoned that when the Act was amended in 2012 – internet broadcasting was not alien to India and if the Legislature intended Section 31D to apply to internet broadcasting, it would’ve done so by specifically amending the provision. Ltd and Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. Meticulous Market Research Pvt.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
121 
Let's personalize your content