Search for: "The Dear Rich Staff"
Results 321 - 340
of 534
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 May 2009, 9:40 am
" I'm so glad you asked (although the Dear Rich staff is upset that you think we would answer your question in a such a flippant manner.) [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 7:24 am
The Dear Rich staff is more more concerned about your rights under trade mark law (it's two words in the U.K.) [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 5:55 am
Paradoxically the Dear Rich Staff believes you'll run less risk if you don't ask for permission. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 12:47 pm
Under Section 113(c) of the Copyright Act, you wouldn't need permission to reproduce the costumes (and let's hope the Dear Rich staff doesn't need it either for our 1941 blog imagery). [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 6:07 am
To get a more comprehensive answer, the Dear Rich staff would need to know: Did you create the software at work (or using work equipment)? [read post]
8 Jul 2009, 10:50 am
Since you're already headed uphill as a pro se litigant, the Dear Rich Staff thinks you might want to simplify your litigation by striking the request for a preliminary injunction. [read post]
10 Sep 2009, 6:49 am
(And on a completely different topic, the Dear Rich staff wonders if this is trademark infringement.) [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 5:46 am
We've said it many times before but like Smokey the Bear, the Dear Rich Staff never tires of repeating our mantra: big companies that own licensed characters don't like it when people make money off unauthorized reproductions. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 7:24 am
Of course, the Dear Rich staff notes that your biggest challenge may not be getting the patent, it could be gathering the resources to stop others from playing it without paying you. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 7:26 am
Dear Rich: Over 13 years ago I purchased MC Hammer's storage units which contained all his personal property such as awards, costumes, music, wedding pictures, business records, tons of mementos, etc. [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 8:06 am
The Dear Rich Staff respects you for coming up with one great idea and hope you come up with more. [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 7:48 am
We wish we could be more decisive but the trouble with trademark law is that sometimes, the Dear Rich Staff has no friggin' clue how the courts (or UPSTO) will rule. [read post]
5 Jun 2009, 9:35 am
The Dear Rich staff thinks that's a long shot, since most books published before 1963 are probably in the PD. [read post]
19 May 2009, 7:44 am
The Dear Rich staff feels your pain... and your letter did prompt us to file an application for our moniker (see above). [read post]
30 Sep 2008, 7:41 pm
Dear Rich: What does "perpetuity" mean in the case of a music publishing contract? [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 1:08 pm
The Dear Rich Staff realizes this may not be what you wanted to hear ... but sometimes the easiest approach may be to let go and move on. [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 5:24 am
We wish it wasn't so, but the Dear Rich staff feels a creeping sense of boredom with this answer -- perhaps because we addressed similar issues in this post. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 6:18 am
The Dear RIch Staff notes that one of the factors used to determine infringement is whether The Bark is likely to "bridge the gap" between decals and t-shirts, and jewelry. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 7:47 am
The Dear Rich Staff recommends that you look through the termination paperwork to see how it deals with intangible assets. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 7:57 am
The Dear Rich staff believes you're best off dumping Sigmund from the imagery and just proceeding with Dr. [read post]
