This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
But that all came crashing down after I reported in 2016 of Bluford’s settlement of a lawsuit charging him with impersonating a lawyer, forging legal documents and fraudulently swindling two clients. As of this writing, the lawsuit is ongoing. Following my report, QuickLegal quickly shut down.
Gutman created a Pinterest account in 2011 and an Instagram account in 2012, shortly after she began working for JLM. The last time we blogged this case , the district court had sided with JLM, initially restricting Gutman’s use of the social media accounts and then awarding control over the accounts to JLM.
The district court didn’t act on the motions, which acted as a pocket denial. The appeals court reverses, dismisses Hah’s lawsuits, and orders Hah to pay the defendants’ attorneys’ fees. The appeals court says that the contract damages allegation was conclusory and insufficient, so that claim fails too.
My roundup of the top Internet Law developments of 2023: 10) California court bans targeted advertising (?). Facebook , a California appeals court shocked the advertising community by suggesting that using common demographic criteria for ad targeting, such as age or gender, may violate California’s anti-discrimination law.
In the realms of legal technology and innovation, the pandemic had yielded silver linings – greater adoption of technology, more flexible workplaces, hybrid courts – that promised a future in which the legal profession and justice system would better serve those who need them. Do courts fully reopen or not?
Supreme Court TransUnion decision. On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a significant opinion on standing in the context of consumer class actions in TransUnion LLC v. The Supreme Court affirmed that certain members of a class action lacked standing—and therefore could not be members of the class. The Opinion.
But that undersells the level of inconsistency in courts’ interpretations of the law of copyright preemption. At the circuit court level, the law of copyright preemption of contracts is a circuit split-plus, with at least two and as many as four differentiating positions on what might constitute preemption. 2d 426, 433 (8th Cir.1993)
I built a document automation app online to help people fight their tickets for free using a recent court decision that had come down in Manhattan. There were two other court decisions from just outside of the city that were persuasive as well. He’s an attorney licensed to practice in California since 2011. Read it here.
The term “person” has also been interpreted conservatively by the Courts in respect of copyright law. In 2019, the Delhi High Court rejected a copyright claim over a list compiled by a computer, on the grounds of, inter alia, lack of human intervention. [8] Few of the cases are discussed below.
In the realms of legal technology and innovation, the pandemic had yielded silver linings – greater adoption of technology, more flexible workplaces, hybrid courts – that promised a future in which the legal profession and justice system would better serve those who need them. Do courts fully reopen or not?
This is a competitive keyword advertising lawsuit. A rival, Colibri, displayed in the trademark in its Google keyword ads, but it claims it has stopped doing so after the lawsuit was filed. The court denies a preliminary injunction. To analyze this, the court applies the standard likelihood of consumer confusion factors.
Fifteen years ago, courts generally avoided categorical pronouncements about the legitimacy of competitive keyword advertising. Courts almost never found trademark infringement in those cases, but it was only in the last decade that we started to get opinions saying this bluntly and clearly. Google (2d Circuit) and Rosetta Stone v.
Introduction This lawsuit is one of the many lawsuits around the country brought by conservatives exorcising their persecution complex. Typically, these lawsuits are purely about partisanship. The lawsuits seek to work the ref, hijack other people’s resources for partisan purposes, and rile the partisan’s base.
This is another lawsuit against an Internet access provider (IAP) for user-committed copyright infringement via P2P file sharing. My post on a pre-pandemic district court ruling in this case. NOCIs to Grande between 2011 and 2017. The appeals court disagrees. As usual, a key non-litigant is Rightscorp, which sent 1.3M
It was piloted in 2011–2012. These are individuals if they have a credible claim for relief from removal, they have every reason to show up in immigration court for their hearings, these are the things that a risk tool, ostensibly measures. It takes us over 100 different factors in the risk assessment tool. These are not offenders.
9) Supreme Court Tamps Down on Jawboning and Government Social Media Lawsuits. The Supreme Court is taking a steady stream of Internet Law cases, a trend that will continue for some time. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear the TikTok ban, and Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear Free Speech Coalition v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content