Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Amazon. com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble. com, Inc., 337 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir., 2001), was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. [1] The ruling was an important early cyberlaw precedent on the matter of the technologies that enable e-commerce and whether such technologies are eligible for patent protection.
Please be sure to include responses to items 1-9 above in your email. If you are unsure whether there has been an infringement of your copyright or about your rights in the material, we suggest that you seek legal advice before reporting the material to AOL or sending us a counter-notice.
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir., 2007) was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving a copyright infringement claim against Amazon.com, Inc. and Google, Inc., by the magazine publisher Perfect 10, Inc.
An intellectual property (IP) infringement is the infringement or violation of an intellectual property right. There are several types of intellectual property rights, such as copyrights, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, plant breeders rights [1] and trade secrets. Therefore, an intellectual property infringement may for instance be one ...
Nashville-based Gibson Guitars has served 16 Creative, the owners of Trump Guitars, with a cease-and-desist order for trademark design infringement, Gibson confirmed to The Tennessean in a ...
Section 512(f) deters false claims of infringement by imposing liability on anyone who makes such claims, for the damages suffered by other parties as a result of the OSP's reliance on the false claim, and for associated legal fees. This provision has been used in cases such as Online Policy Group v.
The URL of the page where the unauthorized use of the trademark is located; A description of the reasons why owner or agent claims the trademark as it appears on the service infringes owner’s trademark rights; A statement by owner or agent that the disputed use is not authorized by the owner, its agent, or by law;
In reviewing Yahoo's claim for declaratory relief, the Court applied a three-part version of the Calder test to determine if the effects of LICRA's action were sufficiently directed at California to establish personal jurisdiction, including whether the defendant: 1. committed an intentional act; 2. expressly aimed at the forum state, and 3 ...