Search for: "Ainsworth v. State Bar (1988)"
Results 1 - 3
of 3
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Aug 2008, 8:03 am
This enterprising activity caught the attention of the claimants, who sued Ainsworth for copyright infringement in the United States where they secured a default judgment, Ainsworth taking no active part in the proceedings other than to challenge the jurisdiction of the US court. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 5:01 am
This being so, the judgment of the US court was not enforceable against Ainsworth. * there was no absolute bar against an English court hearing an action to enforce a foreign copyright in respect of infringements that took place abroad. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 2:58 am
Artistic works of art (sculpture and works of artistic craftsmanship) have the fullest protection; then come works with “eye appeal” (AMP Inc v Utilux Pty Ltd [1971] FSR 572); and under Part III of the 1988 Act a modest level of protection has been extended to purely functional objects (the exhaust system of a motor car being the familiar example). [read post]
