Cease and Desist Copying Marketing Ownership 
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
AUGUST 16, 2023
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.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
DECEMBER 5, 2022
Case Citation : Digital Marketing Advisors v. Day to Day Imports. * Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court. * 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v. Summit Entertainment. * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v. Alper Automotive v.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Biswajit Sarkar Copyright Blog
JANUARY 16, 2024
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.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
MARCH 6, 2022
” With respect to whether Babybus’ baby character infringed Moonbug’s baby, Babybus claimed that the alleged copying related to generic features found in nature. . Day to Day Imports. * Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court. * 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
APRIL 1, 2023
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.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
NOVEMBER 30, 2023
Allegedly on behalf of Barrett, an SEO vendor sent DMCA takedown notices to Google, alleging that Source Capital had copied some of Barrett’s copyrighted material. Prior Posts on Section 512(f) * 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Zoox * Surprise! Babybus * A 512(f) Plaintiff Wins at Trial!
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
MAY 30, 2022
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.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
62 
Let's personalize your content