Remove Blogging Remove Cease and Desist Remove Designs Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Zoox

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This paradigm, however, breaks down when copyright ownership is contested. In that circumstance, the takedown notice becomes a proxy battle for a larger and likely fact-dependent war over ownership, which the service in the middle isn’t in a good position to resolve. The hosting service honored the takedown notice.

article thumbnail

Around the IP Blogs

The IPKat

We say goodbye to 2021 with the most interesting posts and articles from the surrounding IP blogs of the past week! The analysis also referred to a pending case before the CJEU dealing with Community design law ( EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann | C-382/21-P) and other EU trade mark cases from 2021. Daktronics, Inc.,

Blogging 126
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

Court Mistakenly Thinks Copyright Owners Have a Duty to Police Infringement–Sunny Factory v. Chen

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

That’s by design–the DMCA was designed to resolve matters outside of court. Now, imagine the rightsowner also overclaimed trade dress protection for its sage leave design. Summit Entertainment. * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v. MGA Entertainment.

Copyright 127
article thumbnail

You’re a Fool if You Think You Can Win a 512(f) Case–Security Police and Fire Professionals v. Maritas

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Construing these allegations as true and in Service’s favor, Service subjectively believed that he possessed an ownership interest and that he never approved the Comedy Dynamics deal. I’m pretty sure the drafters of 512(f) never contemplated that it would be invoked in disputes over ownership.

Fair Use 102
article thumbnail

Anti-Circumvention Takedowns Aren’t Covered by 512(f)–Yout v. RIAA

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

[I’ll blog the Supreme Court’s cert grant in Gonzalez v. Universal. * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership. * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Summit Entertainment. * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v.

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Our blog post on the original Ninth Circuit ruling: “ Ninth Circuit Says LinkedIn Wrongly Blocked HiQ’s Scraping Efforts ”.). 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.

article thumbnail

What are the intellectual property rights for startups?

Biswajit Sarkar Copyright Blog

These rights provide exclusive ownership and control over intangible assets, allowing creators to protect their innovations from unauthorised use, reproduction, or distribution. Firstly, intellectual property rights grant startups exclusive ownership over their innovative ideas and inventions.