Remove Blogging Remove Cease and Desist Remove Marketing 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! Creator Mason Rothschild revealed in an open letter to Hermès, which he posted on his Instagram account on December 22, that he received a cease-and-desist letter from the French luxury goods brand.

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

512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. McCandless

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Case Citation : Digital Marketing Advisors 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. MGA Entertainment.

article thumbnail

Too Rusty For Krusty–Nickelodeon v. Rusty Krab Restaurant (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Judging from the Rusty Krab’s marketing efforts and social media promotion as detailed in Viacom’s complaint, the pop-up was far more focused on providing the backdrop for Instagram-worthy selfies than it was on producing edible food. The court then moves on to consider Viacom’s copyright infringement claim.

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

So this post is 100% true, even if it might sound farcical. * * * This ruling is part of an ongoing multi-iteration tussle (in and out of court) over market share between two rival unions. I’m pretty sure the drafters of 512(f) never contemplated that it would be invoked in disputes over ownership. BONUS 2: Barz Adventures Inc.

Fair Use 102
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. IPRs are crucial for startups as they safeguard their unique ideas and creations, enabling them to establish a competitive edge in the market.

article thumbnail

Surprise! Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Bored Ape Yacht Club v. Ripps

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Maritas * 512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing 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.