Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Many contracts in the entertainment industry include arbitration clauses. <i>EL&F</i> will periodically provide updates on how courts are interpreting and enforcing these clauses and appeals to arbitrators' rulings.
Attorneys are faced with a variety of potential liability issues in handling matters for clients. Malpractice insurance can help, but such policies don't eliminate the raising of liability claims. These claims may include disqualification of counsel based on alleged adverse interests of clients, malpractice allegations based on transactional and litigation work and the threat of Rule 11 sanctions. <br>The entertainment business presents its own lawyer liability concerns.
Originally, e-commerce businesses relied on banner advertising that appeared on Internet sites when users visited. Next, e-commerce merchants found that unsolicited bulk e-mailing (a.k.a. spam) was more effective, because it could be sent to Internet e-mail users. Now, e-commerce professionals have found that "pop-up" ads are more effective still, because they can be sent to every Internet user. Pop-up ads are advertisements that spontaneously appear on a personal computer screen when an Internet user accesses the Internet. Currently there is no effective regulation of pop-up advertisements and until their actions are regulated, civil litigation is the most viable option to stop pop-ups advertisements from invading the privacy of unknowing and unwilling Internet users.
Features
Cases and news of interest in the Internet industry. This month: Feds Reject 'Do-Not-Spam' list ... and more!
Features
In response to the Verizon decision, the RIAA has turned to the use of "John/Jane Doe" lawsuits as the mechanism by which to identify file-sharing customers of ISPs and obtain judicial relief against copyright infringement. Since January, and continuing through the end of last month, the RIAA has filed hundreds of lawsuits against "Doe" defendants in federal district courts around the country.
The announcement in April by Google to revisit its Adwords trademark policy has already resulted in trademark litigation against the search engine giant in several countries. The decision by Google to allow third-party advertisers to purchase the rights to any keyword, even if those keywords are trademarks held by another, has become a hot topic for brand owners fearful of the potential business consequences.
In a potential step toward amending the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (FTDA), codified at 15 U.S.C. §1125(c), the House Committee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held a hearing on April 20, 2004 to discuss the "Committee Print of a Bill to Amend the Federal Trademark Dilution Act." The draft legislation seeks to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court decision in <i>Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.</i>, 537 U.S. 418 (2003) by providing that the FTDA requires proof of likely dilution, not actual dilution. It also adds a definition of the term "famous" to the Act, clarifies that the Act applies to both blurring and tarnishment of famous marks, and includes defenses intended to safeguard free speech.
Features
In the last several years, a number of insurance companies including Chubb, AIG, InsureTrust (through Lloyd's of London), Venture Programs, Intellectual Property Risk Management ("IPRM"), and Litigation Risk Management, Inc. ("LRM") have begun offering insurance that pays costs associated with infringement of patents only, or infringement of some combination or all of patents, trademarks, trade dress, copyrights and trade secrets. For purposes of this article we will refer to these polices as "IP infringement policies." IP infringement policies vary by carrier and property covered. The following descriptions are necessarily general.
Features
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Features
Vicarious liability is applicable in most areas of tort law. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in an opinion early last year, "traditional vicarious liability rules ordinarily make principals or employers vicariously liable for acts of their agents or employees in the scope of their authority or employment." <i>Meyer v. Holley</i>, 537 U.S. 280, 283 (2003).