Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Band-Name Disputes/Claim Preclusion
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a breach-of-fiduciary-duty suit in California state court by Al Jardine ' an original Beach Boys member and a director of the band's Brother Records Inc. (BRI) ' against BRI can proceed despite a related federal court ruling against Jardine over use of “The Beach Boys” trademark. Brother Records Inc. v. Jardine, 04-55096. The California Court of Appeal had decided that the federal ruling didn't present a res-judicata bar to Jardine's state suit. The federal appeals court noted: “Jardine's breach of fiduciary duty claim does not threaten the district court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce the injunction, which prohibits Jardine from using the Beach Boys trademark. Even if there was some question about the possibility of interference with the injunction, 'any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to … finally determine the controversy.'”
Contractual Wrong-doing/Statute of Limitations
The New York Appellate Division granted dismissal of a suit alleging that hip-hop mogul Sean Combs “menaced plaintiff with a baseball bat, while defendant [Kenneth] Meiselas, Combs's attorney, demanded that plaintiff sign an instrument forfeiting all interest in defendant Bad Boy Entertainment Inc.” Plaintiff Kirk Burrowes also claimed tortuous interference with his management agreement with artist Mary J. Blige. The appellate court noted that the tortious interference claim lacked sufficient facts and that the other causes of action were time-barred. The appellate court stated: “To the extent plaintiff alleges defendants made certain promises as late as 2001 that could toll the applicable limitations period, they were not in writing signed by defendants, as required by [N.Y.] General Obligations Law Sec. 17-101.” Burrowes v. Combs, 6654-6655.
Copyrights/Grant Terminations
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
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.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?