Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Reversed and remanded. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held, 6–3, that the first-sale doctrine exhausts copyright of the works lawfully made or purchased abroad.
The current copyright law, Republic Act No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines), was passed in 1998. [ 11 ] The Philippine Senate Committee on Trade, Commerce and Entrepreneurship 's Senate Bill Nos. 2150 and 2385 aim amend the 27-year old IP Code by enabling online site blocking to protect intellectual property rights against ...
Universal Music Group v. Augusto was a federal court case filed by Universal Music Group against Troy Augusto, a man who sold promotional CDs on eBay. UMG claimed that the CDs were their property, and Augusto's sales constituted copyright infringement. On January 4, 2011, the Ninth Circuit sided with Augusto, holding that "UMG's distribution of ...
The sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code. Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp: 929 F.2d 1147, 1150: 6th Cir. 1991 The sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code. Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service: 499 U.S. 340: 1991
Defendant Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc. is the American Agent for British corporation SevenArts, who owns the copyright for the Erté works of interest. Upon discovering the sale of the Betty Boop fabric, Chalk & Vermilion filed a request with eBay through their Verified Rights Owner Program ("VeRO") for a notice of claimed infringement.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate
In this case, the profits made by Woolworth's were irrelevant when compared to the damage done to Contemporary Arts business model. “Indeed sales at a small margin might cause more damage to the copyright proprietor than sales of the infringing article at a higher price” read Jackson's decision.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. [1]