Search for: "Generes v. Campbell"
Results 661 - 680
of 1,359
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Feb 2014, 8:30 am
NOEL v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 8:35 am
Campbell, JudgeRepresenting Appellant: Dana J. [read post]
9 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court held in Campbell v. [read post]
8 Feb 2014, 4:49 pm
Increasingly doing doctrinal work—Campbell, then Blanch v. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 8:35 am
Campbell Soup Co. and In re General Mills, Inc. [read post]
5 Feb 2014, 3:26 pm
No, just a glass-- but beer's best tasted in glass that's waisted" (here), soon-to-be-guest-Kat Darren Meale provided us with a commentary on the design law issues arising from Utopia Tableware v BBP Marketing Ltd [2013] EWHC 3483, a decision of Mr Recorder Douglas Campbell sitting as an Enterprise Judge in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) for England and Wales. [read post]
5 Feb 2014, 12:51 am
The Ninth Circuit arguably erred because, while relying on the US Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 US 569 (1994), it overlooked the part of Campbellin which the majority stated that the defence of fair use may apply to a satire if “there is little or no risk of market substitution [of the original work with the later work], whether because of the large extent of transformation of the earlier work, . . . [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 8:54 am
14 In Eldred v. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 4:59 am
Campbell v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 8:39 am
Campbell, Judge.Representing Appellants: Angela C. [read post]
26 Jan 2014, 9:54 am
I really like the following description of "transformative" use in the Supreme Court's Campbell ruling:"The central purpose of this investigation is to see, in Justice Story's words, whether the new work merely 'supersede[s] the objects' of the original creation, Folsom v. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 11:03 am
Contract law: Consider Campbell v. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 8:35 am
Affirmed.Case Name: IN THE INTEREST OF LB, BO, KO, Minors, STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES v. [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 4:47 pm
Section 1 – Serious harm A statement is no longer defamatory unless a claimant can show that ‘…its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to [his/her] reputation…’ This section builds on the jurisprudence of Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75 and Thornton v Telegraph Media Group [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB) and is intended to deter trivial claims. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 8:13 am
MOATS v. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 7:02 pm
Butler v. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 8:22 am
Case Name: JOY KLOMLIAM v. [read post]
5 Jan 2014, 3:30 pm
Examples are US v. [read post]
3 Jan 2014, 6:48 am
UPDATE: Per PACER, the case was settled on undisclosed terms in 2007, though not before generating the opinion in Sobini Films v. [read post]
25 Dec 2013, 9:59 pm
Guest v. [read post]
