Search for: "Holder v. Smith" Results 61 - 80 of 572
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 May 2013, 7:48 am by Conor McEvily
Monsanto Co., in which the Court held that the doctrine of patent exhaustion does not allow a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder’s permission. [read post]
10 May 2010, 12:42 pm by Paul Levy
  Moreover, Judge Kendall decided that the use of Houlihan’s mark to identify it as the subject of the posters’ criticism was protected by Justice Holmes’ opinion in Prestonettes v. [read post]
8 Dec 2022, 8:06 am by Thor Maalouf
This was also an issue for the Singapore High Court in The “STI Orchard” [2022], SGHCR 6 on which Reed Smith has reported here. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 4:00 am by Ray Dowd
Subsection (1) generally applies to copyright holders and subsection (2) generally applies to users.Lenz v Universal Music Corp., 801 F3d 1126, 1131 [9th Cir 2015] op amended and superseded on denial of reh, 13-16106, 2016 WL 1056082 [9th Cir Mar. 17, 2016]The reason that the case is interesting is that it recognizes a tort in a wrongful takedown. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 12:01 pm by Anna Christensen
Holder, City of Ontario v. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 2:31 am by gmlevine
Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1147 (2002) (“Similarity of marks or lack thereof are context-specific concepts. [read post]