Search for: "Dr. Seuss Enterprise, Inc."
Results 1 - 20
of 23
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Aug 2021, 3:06 pm
Seuss Enterprises v. [read post]
23 May 2018, 11:46 am
Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. [read post]
21 Mar 2019, 1:58 pm
Seuss Enterprises., LP v. [read post]
24 May 2018, 1:14 pm
Seuss Enterprises LP (the owner of the intellectual property rights associated with the Dr. [read post]
1 Jul 2012, 3:35 am
Seuss Enterprises, L.P. [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 3:42 am
It was announced yesterday that ABC, Inc., in response to its receipt of a cease-and-desist letter from Dr. [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 8:30 am
Interestingly, the plaintiff, Dr Seuss, had previously been involved, several few years ago, in a leading case on fair use, Dr Seuss Enterprises v. [read post]
11 Jan 2009, 4:42 pm
Seuss Enterprises, LP v. [read post]
21 Mar 2019, 10:43 am
Seuss Enterprises, L.P. [read post]
11 May 2010, 2:26 pm
Seuss Enterprises L.P. sued Penguin Books USA, Inc., over a “Cat in the Hat”-styled parody that tells the story of the O.J. [read post]
24 Sep 2007, 8:04 am
Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. [read post]
23 Sep 2007, 9:12 pm
Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 11:50 am
Seuss Enterprises, LP v. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 9:52 am
Seuss Enters. v. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 10:01 am
Seuss Enterprises - that is, until the city received a cease desist letter from the Grinch’s counsel. [read post]
3 Jun 2008, 7:20 am
Seuss Enterprises v. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 10:02 am
Seuss Enterprises v. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 8:09 am
As discussed here, if considered satire, not parody, Dumb Starbucks could be liable for infringement (Dr Seuss Enterprises v Penguin Books USA (1997)).It seems unlikely that adding DUMB- provides enough distinction for it to avoid being considered an unauthorised derivative of Starbucks’ copyrighted works. [read post]
5 Aug 2013, 4:32 am
Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. [read post]
28 Nov 2008, 12:14 pm
– Tackling music piracy in Africa (Afro-IP) Australia Patent infringement and account of profits: Black & Decker Inc v GMCA Pty Ltd (No 5) (IP Down Under) MONSTER ENERGY keeps battling: Hansen Beverage Company v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd (Australian Trade Marks Law Blog) High Court provides guidance on contributory infringement provision: Northern Territory v Collins (International Law Office) PricewaterhouseCooper report – Making the… [read post]
