Search for: "Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc" Results 1 - 20 of 23
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Dec 2021, 1:09 pm by Dennis Crouch
For example, the PTO denied registration under Section 1052(c) to ROYAL KATE as applied to watches, cufflinks, jewelry, and other luxury products based solely on the determination that “ROYAL KATE identifies Kate Middleton whose identity is renowned. [read post]
15 Jan 2021, 1:52 pm by Scott Hervey
This test was formulated by the California Supreme Court in Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 5:00 am by Jesse Lempel
Likewise, the California Supreme Court affirmed in Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2018, 11:08 am by Marie-Andree Weiss
”The brief cites  the Comedy III Productions, Inc. v Gary Saderup, Inc., where the California Court of Appeals found that the right of publicity “has the potential of censoring significant expression by suppressing alternative versions of celebrity images that are iconoclastic, irreverent, or otherwise attempt to redefine the celebrity’s meaning. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 5:10 am by Eugene Volokh
" (Guglielmi v Spelling-Goldberg Productions, 25 Cal 3d 860, 869, 603 P2d 454, 460 [1979] (Bird, C.J., concurring) (concurrence endorsed by four of seven Justices).) [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 9:47 am by Sheppard Mullin
In that case, Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 9:47 am by Sheppard Mullin
In that case, Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 9:47 am by Sheppard Mullin
In that case, Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 9:21 am by Ken Davidson
In Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. [read post]