Search for: "People v. Brown (1988)" Results 81 - 100 of 161
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jan 2013, 2:06 pm by Bexis
  We already did that in connection with the original decision in Conte v. [read post]
15 May 2023, 10:57 am by Amy Howe
The justices granted review in two cases presenting this question, Brown v. [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 11:50 am
Superior Court, 920 P.2d 1347, 1351 n.2 (Cal. 1996); Brown v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 11:02 am
The Gridiron Battle In 2009, legendary Cleveland Browns football player Jim Brown sued Electronic Arts and Sony, claiming they had violated the Lanham Act by including his image and stats in EA’s Madden Football series. [25] EA had licensed current NFL players through the NFL Players Association, but as an NLF retiree, Brown was not included. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 12:00 am
According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Brown, to violate the Lanham Act there must be no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, or in the event there is, the use must be explicitly misleading. [27]Maximum’s Nearly Identical ArgumentCMG echoes Brown’s argument with regard to the Lanham Act, alleging that Maximum’s use of General Patton is causing consumer confusion as to any involvement and endorsement. [read post]
1 Jan 2023, 4:00 am by Administrator
Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670, at pp. 692-93. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 5:30 am by Duets Guest Blogger
Grade: D Super Bowl XXIII 1988 Another bad logo. [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 1:08 am by Tessa Shepperson
The issue was recently considered by the High Court in Northwood Solihull Ltd v Fearn & Ors (2020) EWHC 3538 (QB). [read post]