Search for: "P. v. Parodi"
Results 61 - 80
of 167
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Oct 2015, 4:45 pm
In this ruling, Judge Leval reminds us quite forcibly that the primary beneficiary intended by copyright law is the public, through “access to knowledge” (p.13) and “expand[ed] public learning” (p. 15). [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 1:21 pm
(4) Expressive uses—gripe sites, parody, etc. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 1:47 am
Rule of Reason curbs Basic Instinct as trade mark loses its appealCase C-400/14 P Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel v OHIM), Repsol YPF SA intervening see the Court of Justice of the European Union dealing with the conflict of two figurative marks containing the word "basic". [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 9:11 am
B&B v. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 4:34 am
Subject v. object: is TM law descriptive or normative? [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 5:30 am
On December 9, 2011, Enjaian created what he calls a `parody of a law school administered student group,’ called `LawClosed. [read post]
21 May 2015, 8:47 am
Radiance Foundation, Inc. v. [read post]
4 May 2015, 6:03 am
., music, internet/digitization, parody). [read post]
18 Apr 2015, 11:05 am
Expressive content of photos can be entirely unaltered—Dillon v. [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 2:45 pm
Lenz v. [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 10:45 am
White v. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 5:05 pm
Grant, 108 P.3d 768 (Washington Supreme Court 2005). [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 6:40 am
Grant, 108 P.3d 768 (Washington Supreme Court 2005). [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 4:06 am
Thus, where use is necessary to produce a form of speech (parody), it will be reluctantly tolerated as fair. [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 4:04 pm
On 17 February 2015, the Court of Appeal (Moore-Bick P, Black and Lewison LJJ) gave judgment in the case of JX MX (A child proceeding by her Mother and Litigation Friend Mrs AXMX) v. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:56 pm
School of Law) Lisa P. [read post]
27 Dec 2014, 2:19 am
More from Europe: In Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box the CJEU said that circumventing a protection system may not be unlawful. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 7:25 am
The fourth speaker was Andrew P. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 2:32 am
The second scenario is where both rights fall within the hands of the same owner, as in Case C-377/05 Christian Dior v Evora. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 11:15 am
… “[P]ublic prominence does not confer a shield to ward off caricature, parody and satire. [read post]
