Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search


Libeling Lawnmowers
April 28, 2006
Is it possible to defame an inanimate object such as a plane, or a house, or a painting? Surprisingly, the answer to this question is 'yes.' This sort of claim, which is generically captured by the designation 'commercial disparagement,' has, on occasion, been pursued successfully at trial involving 'hard' assets and can even be employed when the damages are more prospective than actual. The tort falls generally within the penumbra of libel and slander-related claims, but has been overshadowed by the more commonly recognized types of claims asserted against individuals or corporate entities rather than tangible objects. Commercial disparagement claims, when understood, are a useful line of defense to an asset owner ' as well as a hazard for those unaware of the claim's contours.
Dismantling the 'Great Wall' of Risk
April 28, 2006
<b><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Series.</i></b> This two-part article (based on a 2005 white paper issued by ELA's Equipment Leasing Foundation, 'Knocking Down (Great) Walls') looks at the key legal and regulatory issues surrounding investing in the Chinese leasing market. Last month's installment provided a market history and analysis of the current legal and regulatory climate. This month's conclusion examines the experiences of lessors currently operating in China.
Bit Parts
April 28, 2006
Collective Bargaining Agreements/Waiver of Judicial Forum<br>Concert Injuries/Negligence<br>Copyright Transfer/Writing Requirement<br>Television-Programming Dispute/Judicial Forum<br>BOOK RELEASE: 'Music, Money and Success,' 5th Edition by Jeffrey Brabec and Todd Brabec<br>Upcoming Event: The Third Pacific Northwest Arts and Entertainment Symposium
Courthouse Steps
April 28, 2006
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
IP News
April 28, 2006
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Counsel Concerns
April 28, 2006
Malpractice/Venue Transfer<br>Rule 11 Sanctions<br> Rule 11 Substantive Requirements
Supreme Court to Decide Standing Issue
April 28, 2006
On Feb. 21, 2006, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review <i>MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech</i>, 427 F.3d 958 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The question presented is: 'Does Article III's grant of jurisdiction of 'all Cases ... arising under ... the Laws of the United States,' implemented in the 'actual controversy' requirement of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. '2201(a), require a patent licensee to refuse to pay royalties and commit material breach of the license agreement before suing to declare the patent invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed?' Whether the Court affirms or reverses the Federal Circuit, which answered in the affirmative, undoubtedly will affect the balance of power between patentees and their licensees and, perhaps, the willingness of licensors to grant licenses.
Clause & Effect <b>Film-Option Agreements/Theatrical Release.
April 28, 2006
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a film-option agreement required a film to be released initially in theaters. LaHaye v. Goodneuz Group LLC, 04-55839. Rev. Tim LaHaye, co-author of the Christian-book series 'Left Behind,' had filed suit against a production company over a film based on one of the books. The appeals court first found in its unpublished opinion that there&#133;
Cameo Clips
April 28, 2006
Recent cases in entertainment law.
Is 'No Use' Always a 'Fair Use'?
April 28, 2006
In order to avoid liability for trademark infringement relating to the sale of keywords corresponding to trademarks, search engines, including Google, are attacking the concept that trademark owners should be able to protect the 'commercial magnetism' of their marks. Recently, in <i>Rescue.com v. Google, Inc.</i>, No. 5:04-CV-1056 (N.D.N.Y.), Google argued that the trademark laws 'are not meant to protect consumer good will [sic] created through extensive, skillful, and costly advertising.' Google's Reply Brief at 4 n.4 (2005) (citing <i>Smith v. Chanel, Inc.</i>, 402 F.2d 562, 566 (9th Cir. 1968)).

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Law Firms and the Rise of Hospitality
    The law firm office cannot remain unchanged, as if frozen in time set to some date prior to the onset of pandemic, when the terms and meaning have all changed. In fact, the office must now provide benefits or an experience the lawyers and staff cannot get at home.
    Read More ›
  • Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel
    'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.
    Read More ›
  • Lack of Logo Placement At Center of Ruling Over Meat Loaf Album Packaging
    To build visibility for its brand, a record label or production company will want its logo included on products containing its master recordings manufactured and distributed by third parties. This will be addressed in the agreement between the label or production company and manufacturer/distributor. The failure to include the logo may raise a host of issues, from the breadth of the logo-placement obligation ' such as whether it includes Internet downloads ' to the proper theory on which to base any damages and just which album-sales figures are subject to evidentiary discovery. A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ' in a long-running dispute between Cleveland International Records and Sony Music Entertainment ' illustrated how these issues may be argued and decided.
    Read More ›