Search for: "Warner v. Harris"
Results 21 - 40
of 110
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2022, 8:46 am
From McCarthy v. [read post]
6 Jan 2009, 10:17 am
The judge in Novak v. [read post]
11 Sep 2008, 7:30 am
Ent. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 6:00 am
Publications Int’l, Ltd., Warner Bros. [read post]
22 Apr 2009, 7:10 am
The story of Warner Bros v RDR Books - the Harry Potter Lexicon case - provides a vehicle to examine the conundrum. [read post]
17 Feb 2009, 1:13 pm
The judge in Novak v. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 8:24 am
The Lexicon proved to be such a good resource that it was reputedly used by Warner Bros in their Harry Potter productions. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 6:32 pm
See Harris Custom Builders, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 5:00 am
In the case of Moran v. [read post]
13 Apr 2008, 11:00 pm
Rowling v. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 5:41 am
Rowling and Warner Bros. v. [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 11:39 am
Eric Goldman recently singled out this passage in the UMG v. [read post]
14 Jul 2008, 9:10 pm
So, for example, if I review the new Harry Potter movie, I can use the trademark "Harry Potter" in my review without fear of liability because it is both descriptive of the source of the film (the Harry Potter franchise co-owned by Warner Brothers and J.K. [read post]
30 Mar 2017, 5:03 am
Kirschner, the case aimed at deindexing a RipOffReport post about Daniel Warner; nor Howard Marks, the defendant in Gottuso v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 7:40 am
Rowling and Warner Brothers are suing Steven Van Ark and his publisher over the Harry Potter Lexicon, a book based on Mr. [read post]
26 Jul 2021, 7:48 am
Coogan v. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 2:23 am
Prince Harry’s claim against The Sun publisher News Group Newspapers will proceed to a full trial in the High Court, Duke of Sussex v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2023] EWHC 1944 (Ch). [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 3:53 pm
17 May 2018, 3:15 am
Back in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Afroyim v. [read post]
4 Nov 2007, 2:02 am
Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer On Copyright ¶ 13.06 (2000), as cited in A&M Records v. [read post]
