Manatt Settles Malicious Prosecution Suit for $25 Million
January 26, 2011
Ending 13 years of litigation, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips has agreed to pay $25 million in damages to Los Angeles businessman Stewart Resnick and his wife, Lynda, in a case that began over trademark and advertising claims related to the late Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales.
Upcoming Event
December 28, 2010
Intellectual Property Review ' Updates and Changes from 2010," Portland, OR, Jan. 21, 2011.
Bit Parts
December 28, 2010
Band Members' Royalty Claims Against Survivor Principal Survive Dismissal<br>Insurance Policies Don't Cover Right-of-Publicity Claim<br>Sample Submission Form Blocks Claims over VH1 Reality Show
Counsel Concerns
December 28, 2010
Manatt Phelps Wins Malpractice Suit By Football Players<br>Malicious Prosecution Suit Against Simpson Thacher to Proceed
Cameo Clips
December 28, 2010
RIGHT OF PUBLICITY/EXPERT WITNESSES
DMX Wins Battle over ASCAP for Direct Music Licensing
December 28, 2010
Last July, Muzak competitor DMX and its Weil, Gotshal & Manges lawyers won a licensing fee ruling against Broadcast Music Inc. that had the potential to revolutionize the background music industry. Now the revolution continues: U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York has ruled that DMX must pay ASCAP a fee of only $13.74 to license ASCAP music in each of the 95,000 stores, restaurants and other locations that DMX supplies with background music. ASCAP wanted DMX to pay almost $50 per location.
Film Production Deal Ruled Separate from Marital Agreement
December 28, 2010
Billionaire Ronald Perelman has to pay $4.3 million to a film company he formed with his ex-wife, Ellen Barkin, despite Perelman's claim that the actress' breach of the couple's separation agreement relieved him of his financial obligations to the company, the New York Appellate Division, First Department ruled.
Ninth Circuit Holds That Even Brats Deserve Equitable Treatment
December 20, 2010
Many companies require their employees to sign agreements that any inventions they create "during the course of their employment" will belong to the employer. A recent case decided by the Ninth Circuit, however, illustrates why companies should revisit such agreements in order to ensure that the ideas developed by their employees may not be exploited by those employees to the detriment of their employer.
