Search for: "Warner v. Denis"
Results 161 - 180
of 516
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jan 2016, 4:30 am
See Warner Bros. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am
In Europe, The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the consent of a copyright holder does not cover the distribution of an object incorporating a work where that object has been altered after its initial marketing to such an extent that it constitutes a new reproduction of that work (Case C‑419/13, Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright) with Eleonora opining that the decision means that that there is no such thing as a general principle of… [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 8:13 pm
DuBray v Warner Bros. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 3:28 am
Warner Bros. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 3:33 am
The case has since reached its newest milestone, which will be cause for celebration for many, and a loss for the few.For the uninitiated, the case of Rupa Marya v Warner/Chapell Music Inc dealt with the aforementioned song "Happy Birthday to You", which was created by the Hill sisters, Mildred and Patty, in the late 1800s (although only in melody). [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 9:52 am
On Sept. 25, Warner Bros. [read post]
16 Sep 2015, 6:11 am
Sept. 20, 2013) (denying summary judgment of § 512(f) counterclaim due to “sufficient evidence in the record to suggest that [Plaintiff] Warner intentionally targeted files it knew it had no right to remove”); Rosen v. [read post]
13 Aug 2015, 6:27 pm
No wonder the Warner Music Group wanted to keep the most recognized song in the English language out of there. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 3:52 pm
AereoFox v. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 12:22 am
Warner-Lambert sued, because they considered that the Actavis product was still likely to be prescribed for the patented indication and that Actavis was liable for such sales.In a first judgment, Arnold J denied interim relief to Warner-Lambert, holding that a Swiss form claim required subjective intent on the part of Actavis that the drug would be used for the treatment of pain, that Warner-Lambert had no pleaded case on subjective intent, and that… [read post]
28 May 2015, 8:23 am
Copyright Office: Jacqueline CharlesworthMichelle ChoeRegan SmithCy DonnellySteve RuheJohn RileyStacy Cheney (NTIA) Proposed Class 5: Audiovisual works – derivative uses – multimedia e-books This proposed class would allow circumvention of access controls on lawfully made and acquired motion pictures used in connection with multimedia e-book authorship. [read post]
7 May 2015, 6:00 am
Higgins in the premises liability case of Zangenberg v. [read post]
3 May 2015, 9:01 pm
In its April 29, 2015 decision in Dickson v. [read post]
26 Apr 2015, 4:30 am
Beaulne, 2015 QCCS 1562 http://t.co/UyCkzy9qqE -> Guest commentary: Boston’s law firms are targets for cyber criminals http://t.co/37MCtBaeB7 -> Mandated “fair use” language has no place in trade promotion authority http://t.co/eVgq69wy8J -> Limitations on testimonial advertising does not infringe Charter rights College v. [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 1:35 am
In the case of Warner v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:31 am
This Kat posted last month on the fascinating case of Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat), in which Arnold J gave the first detailed UK consideration of what a Swiss-form claim means. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 12:39 pm
In case the District Court Judge did not agree, the Magistrate Judge denied the motion to compel and recommended that the District Court Judge deny the motion to suppress. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 1:28 pm
Ct. 974 (2011) (pentobarbital); Wackerly v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 8:16 am
” The court denied this request. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 10:32 am
Earlier this week, the 10th Circuit denied Warner's request to stop his execution, and his case now moves to the U.S. [read post]
