Search for: "National Lampoon, Inc" Results 1 - 20 of 23
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Dec 2008, 5:04 pm
The defendants include National Lampoon, Inc. and its CEO, Daniel S. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 5:03 pm by Anthony Lake
The trial of the former CEO for the National Lampoon, Inc., Timothy S. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 5:03 pm by Anthony Lake
The trial of the former CEO for the National Lampoon, Inc., Timothy S. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 8:07 pm by Barry Barnett
Xenon Pictures, Inc., 08-56667, slip op. at 18151-52 (9th Cir. [read post]
28 Nov 2009, 6:51 am
 Meanwhile, legal questions continue to loom regarding another business where Durham has a vested interest: Los Angeles-based National Lampoon, Inc. [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 5:00 am by Kevin
 The filing alleges that Hairtech lost $6.6 million on the launch party alone, which would mean that somebody chose to pay $6.6 million for a launch party for hair extensions.Hilton prevailed in the last suit of this kind that she faced, an $8 million lawsuit accusing her of failing to adequately promote the 2006 film "National Lampoon's 'Pledge This! [read post]
11 May 2016, 1:04 am
 | Anne Frank's diary & geoblocking | Magic Leap lampoons Google Glass | Arnold's decision in Richter Gedeon Vegyeszeti Gyar RT v Generics| US Trade Secrets Act passes House | Publishing and the Machine| DSM Communication on Platforms leaked! [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 2:53 pm
I had thought that the better view was that taken by the Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2006, 11:20 pm
Of course, they also appeal to anyone with a sense of humor - which, as a former Harvard Lampoon editor, I am happy to see. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 3:33 pm by Jonathan Bailey
There may be exemptions for fair use of these characters, especially if the haunt is using them to parody or lampoon the character in some way. [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 1:09 pm by Dennis Crouch
An approach adopted by the Third and Ninth Circuits inquiring into whether the use of the plaintiff’s identity was not merely imitative, but rather for purposes of lampoon, parody, caricature, or fanciful and creative, and therefore entitled to First Amendment protection.[19] Under this test, Electronic Arts’ use of images of athletes in video games was too imitative to qualify for First Amendment protection against right of publicity claims.[20] TRUMP TOO SMALL passes this… [read post]