Search for: "United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc"
Results 21 - 40
of 56
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Apr 2018, 1:40 pm
Paramount Pictures Corp., 544 N.W.2d 21, 26 (Minn. 1996). [read post]
16 Oct 2017, 11:19 am
Applicant maintained that the dominant portion of his design is the map of Africa, while in the cited mark the map of the United States is dominant, that the cited design suggests that Africa dominates the United States, and that the alteration of his design to fit the United States outline within the map of Africa profoundly changes the commercial impression of his mark as compared to the cited mark. [read post]
15 Feb 2017, 6:38 am
Member Pearce filed a separate dissenting opinion (Local 58, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), AFL–CIO (Paramount Industries, Inc.), February 10, 2017). [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 1:28 pm
Marie-Andree Weiss of The 1709 Blog discusses the Paramount Pictures Corp. v. [read post]
2 Oct 2016, 12:11 pm
See United States v. [read post]
3 May 2016, 2:41 pm
[Is the United States scaleable? [read post]
19 Jan 2016, 8:00 am
Fan Film’s Crowdfunding Might Fund Litigation Instead Paramount Pictures Corporation, v. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 10:23 am
Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948). [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 1:24 pm
Oct. 10, 2014); Chen v. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 2:50 pm
Fitness Industry Council of Canada, 2014 FCA 48 Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters v SODRAC 2014 FCA 235 Private Copying 2015, Copyright Board, December 12, 2014 United States American Broadcasting v. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 10:47 am
This post reviews some of the highlights of the court battles of 2014 in Canada and other Commonwealth countries, the United States and the European Union. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 8:44 am
South Bend, Indiana - Indiana patent lawyers for CeraMedic LLC of Plano, Texas sued for patent infringement in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and Zimmer, Inc., both of Warsaw, Indiana (collectively "Zimmer"), infringed "Sintered Al₂O₃ Material, Process for Its Production and Use of the Material," Patent No. 6,066,584, which has been issued by the United States Patent Office. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 8:08 pm
Canada (Orio Canada Inc)., 2013 CAF 225 Voltage Pictures LLC v. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 11:16 am
Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131, 158 (1948). [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 9:15 am
In Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. [read post]
17 May 2013, 1:37 am
Instead, ´what is critical is how the work in question appears to the reasonable observer’ (following Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) and Leibovitz v Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109, 113-14 (2d Cir 1998). [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 5:39 am
The Second Circuit’s 2008 decision in Cartoon Network v. [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 11:38 am
” Ah, but no less considerable a legal authority than the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has determined that, more likely than not, Aereo is not doing anything illegal. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:08 am
” As support, it then stated, “In Fox Film Corp. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:08 am
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying, “the mere fact that a copyright is property derived from a grant by the United States is insufficient to support the claim of exemption.” To be exempt from state taxation, the government must reserve some sort of controlling interest in a grant or privilege. [read post]
