Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ruling on Use of Athlete's Name
It's possible to win the war but lose the final battle. Although former Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Tyler Green prevailed in his lawsuit against a man who used his name for a sports-handicapping Web site, he has now lost his appeal demanding that the man be ordered to reimburse Green's legal fees. And for Green's lawyer, John P. Elliott, the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit came with a one-two punch. Not only was Elliott denied a fee award, but he also got a stern finger-wagging from an appellate judge who complained that a letter he wrote to the defendant was 'particularly combative' and employed a 'most unwise tactic.' Green v. Fornario, 06-2649.
Legally, the decision may prove to be particularly important to intellectual-property lawyers because the appellate court announced a broad deference to lower courts in determining whether a Lanham Act case is so 'exceptional' that it justifies a fee award. 'We emphasize that the term 'exceptional' is not, as the plaintiff seems to suggest, a throwaway. Rather, it calls for a district court to determine whether it finds a defendant's conduct particularly culpable ' enough to alter the general American rule that parties to litigation pay their own attorneys' fees,' U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas L. Ambro wrote.
The Case
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?