Remove Advertising Remove Artistic Work Remove Brands Remove Television
article thumbnail

California Supreme Court reaffirms strict liability for false advertising in Serova

43(B)log

The statements were “commercial advertising meant to sell a product, and generally there ‘can be no constitutional objection to the suppression of commercial messages that do not accurately inform the public.’” Not all marketing of artistic works is noncommercial speech. The California Supreme Court reversed.

article thumbnail

11th Circuit affirms Viacom's Rogers-based win for MTV Floribama Shore

43(B)log

Flora-Bama logo The Flora-Bama has been featured in artistic works by third parties. Chesney also performed on the Lounge’s beachfront stage at a 2014 concert broadcast as “Kenny Chesney: Live at the Flora-Bama” on Country Music Television (CMT), a Viacom channel.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Media Laws, Rights & Privacy Of Celebrities

IP and Legal Filings

Licensing It denotes that the film is based on a previously published novel, book, or artistic work. Krishna Kishore Singh stated in court that no book, film, or television series based on his son’s life should be made without his permission.

Privacy 73
article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (December 18- December 24)

SpicyIP

on December 20, 2023(Delhi High Court) Image from here The Plaintiff owned 5 Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) relating to wireless communication technology which the Defendants were allegedly using in their mobile phones being sold under the brand name of OnePlus without the license to do so. . & Ors. Pharmacyclics LLC & Anr.

article thumbnail

Resolving Conflicts Between Trademark and Free Speech Rights After Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

VIP Products LLC, a dispute involving a “Bad Spaniels” dog toy parody of Jack Daniel’s brand of whisky. My post summarizes the Court’s ruling and discusses its implications for brand owners, companies that sell parody products, and anyone interested in trademark law. 1125(c)(3)(C) which applies in every trademark dispute.