Search for: "Cricket Investments Ltd" Results 1 - 16 of 16
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Apr 2016, 1:00 am by Jani Ihalainen
The case of England And Wales Cricket Board Ltd v Tixdaq Ltd dealt with an app called Fanatix, which, among providing sports news, allowed for its users to record clips (up to 8 seconds long) using their smartphones or tablets, and sharing them with like-minded sports fans who might not be able to follow the action live (encapsulating mostly the 'highlights' of an event). [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 3:26 am
Who would like to invest in cricket in India if the administrators collude with Team franchisees? [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 1:51 am by INFORRM
The trial of former New Zealand cricketer Chris Cairns for perjury continues. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 2:11 pm
Unsurprisingly, the answer is yes.Last Friday Arnold J issued his 174-paragraph judgment in England And Wales Cricket Board Ltd & Anor v Tixdaq Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch).BackgroundThe claimants in this case own the copyrights in TV broadcasts (and films incorporated therein) of most cricket matches played by the England men's and women's cricket teams. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 4:06 am
Recently, Justice Arnold in England And Wales Cricket Board Ltd & Anor v Tixdaq Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch) held that 8 second cricket clips infringed copyright in broadcasts of matches, discussed here in a Kat post.Agon also stated that rival website Chessbomb had created an app that allowed spectators of live matches to leak the moves. [read post]
20 Mar 2016, 5:12 am by Andres
We now may have a partial answer in the case of England And Wales Cricket Board Ltd v Tixdaq Ltd. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 3:12 am by Anubha Sinha
Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., one of India's largest pharmaceutical companies. [read post]
2 Mar 2018, 8:59 am by Andres
And more recently we have the interesting case of England And Wales Cricket Board Ltd v Tixdaq Ltd, in which 8 second cricket clips in an app and social media operated by the defendants was enough to be considered as substantial by the Court. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 9:38 am
Rares J delivered his judgment last week: Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v National Rugby League Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 34 . [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 9:27 am
(Afro-IP)   Australia Major changes to Patents Act proposed; proposed changes anger Australian patent attorneys (Mallesons Stephen Jaques) (Managing Intellectual Property) IP examination centre in Melbourne to boost Australian innovation and jobs (IP Down Under) Full Federal Court: ‘Use it or lose it’ approach confirmed: E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan (Mallesons Stephen Jaques)   Bulgaria M-Tel ‘best Bulgarian brand’ in independent… [read post]
29 Sep 2019, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
On 17 September, the Sun newspaper published on its cover an intrusive story about Ben Stokes, the England cricketer, and his family. [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 8:47 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
  Labor Department Officials report Auto Cricket Corp., doing business as AutoCricket.com, has agreed to pay $76,589 in back wages to 414 employees following a W&HD investigation that found the company deducted short rest periods as non-work hours from employee totals of hours worked in violation of the FLSA. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 5:33 am by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
  Labor Department Officials report Auto Cricket Corp., doing business as AutoCricket.com, has agreed to pay $76,589 in back wages to 414 employees following a W&HD investigation that found the company deducted short rest periods as non-work hours from employee totals of hours worked in violation of the FLSA. [read post]
23 Aug 2008, 1:23 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com]   Highlights this week included: DRM for streaming music dies a quiet death: (Electronic Frontier Foundation), (Techdirt) CAFC decides Apotex and Impax infringed AstraZeneca’s Prilosec patents: (Law360), (Patent Prospector), (Patent Docs), (GenericsWeb), CAFC upholds lower court’s decision finding USPTO was within its rights to subject a Cooper patent to… [read post]