Contracts False Advertising Licensing Ownership 
43(B)log
MARCH 21, 2024
15, 2024) This putative class action alleged that Amazon overcharged and “[d]eceived consumers by misrepresenting that it was selling them Digital Content when, in fact, it was really only licensing it to them[.]” The court disagreed: there’s a plausible difference in value between owning outright versus purchasing a revocable license.
43(B)log
AUGUST 16, 2021
It does so at the Rose Bowl Stadium under three contracts with Pasadena, including a Master License Agreement, Trademark Agreement, and Trademark Consent Agreement. There was no controversy as to whether Pasadena had an “ownership” interest in the relevant trademarks.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
43(B)log
AUGUST 25, 2022
The false advertising parts: Jeong alleged that Nexo advertised to consumers that it does not own users’ collateral (e.g., Clients retain 100% ownership of their digital assets. while acting otherwise—eventually invoking its ownership right over users’ collateral to justify liquidation of that collateral (e.g.
43(B)log
OCTOBER 12, 2022
This case concerns major players in the world of professional polo, their efforts to produce and clone genetically superior horses, and the ownership disputes that have arisen from those efforts.” The defendant was initially given “complete and exclusive licensing rights in and to [the selected mares] and all cloned foals.”
43(B)log
OCTOBER 10, 2023
DealMaker alleged that defendants stole its trade secrets and also alleged violation of state and federal false advertising law. Challenged claim: DealMaker’s customers do not retain ownership over their own data. DealMaker noted that Issuance’s own terms include a provision that allows Issuance to license its data.
The IPKat
JUNE 27, 2022
On 24 June 2022, BAYC sued Ryder Ripps, a conceptual artist and NFT creator for trade mark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, cybersquatting and other cause of actions before the Central District of California. This is a U.S NFTs – still subject to “old” IP law An NFT is a non-fungible (i.e. Ether (USD 1+ million).
The IPKat
JUNE 13, 2022
Digital assets can be protected by IP and have always been capable of being licensed or assigned via a contract, or protected as a trade mark. For example, the owners of the famous “ Grumpy Cat ” meme licensed the use of the name, image and likeness of the cat – and successfully enforced these rights. More on this next.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
114 
Let's personalize your content