As if the recent attacks on the tax-exempt status of Internet transactions were not enough for e-commerce vendors to worry about, a new problem has come to light for companies that sell goods or services via an Internet Web site. PanIP, LLC (PanIP), a company based in San Diego, has initiated lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against over 50 companies transacting business over their Internet Web sites, alleging that such activity constitutes infringement of two patents owned by PanIP.1 The patents asserted by PanIP are generally directed to "data processing systems designed to facilitate commercial, financial and educational transactions between multimedia terminals"2 and to "a system for filing applications with an institution from a plurality of remote sites, and for automatically processing said applications in response to each applicant's credit rating obtained from a credit reporting service."3
The Supreme Court's recent Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) opinion, <i>Moseley et al. dba Victor's Little Secret v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. et al.</i>, has a number of practical consequences. It settled an issue that had split the Circuits for years: whether actual dilution or a "likelihood of dilution" must be shown to establish an FTDA violation. Dilution law seeks to prevent the diminution or whittling away of a famous trademark's value through another's commercial use of the same or a similar mark. That somewhat abstract harm suggests the less concrete "likelihood of dilution" standard would more logically apply.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
