Search for: "Varsity Brands, Inc. et al v. Star Athletica, LLC"
Results 1 - 10
of 10
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Aug 2022, 5:22 pm
Varsity Brands, Inc, et al.... [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 9:59 am
Op., Varsity Brands, Inc., et al. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 9:59 am
Op., Varsity Brands, Inc., et al. v. [read post]
23 Aug 2015, 2:29 am
"Varsity Brands, Inc., et al V Star Athletica, LLC. (14-5237)http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/08/19/copyright-case-asks-what-is-a-cheerleading-uniform/ [read post]
11 May 2016, 4:36 am
In Varsity Brands Inc. v. [read post]
3 May 2016, 1:42 am
Star Athletica v. [read post]
2 Mar 2018, 2:27 pm
Varsity Brands, Inc., (“Star Athletica”), expanded the scope of separability analysis, by affirming the Sixth Circuit decision that the design features incorporated in a useful article, such as the cheerleading costumes in the case, are protected under the Copyright Act when they can be separated from, and are capable of existing independently of, the design’s utilitarian aspects.[13] Following the Star Athletica… [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 11:50 am
Varsity Brands, Inc., (“Star Athletica”), expanded the scope of the separability analysis by affirming the Sixth Circuit decision that the design features incorporated in a useful article, such as the cheerleading costumes in the case, are protected under the Copyright Act when they can be separated from, and are capable of existing independently of, the design’s utilitarian aspects.[13] Following the Star Athletica… [read post]
2 Mar 2018, 2:27 pm
Varsity Brands, Inc., (“Star Athletica”), expanded the scope of the separability analysis by affirming the Sixth Circuit decision that the design features incorporated in a useful article, such as the cheerleading costumes in the case, are protected under the Copyright Act when they can be separated from, and are capable of existing independently of, the design’s utilitarian aspects.[13] Following the Star Athletica… [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am
Well Marie-Andree cited that 1879 case Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
