Sherman Oaks, CA
Arbitration Lawyer at Sherman Oaks, CA
Practice Areas: Arbitration, Business ... +3 more
OUTCOME: Settled
Defended Gibran National Committee of Lebanon in royalty dispute between competing parties claiming royalties due on certain works of the author Kahlil Gibran (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
OUTCOME: License Agreement Rescinded by Settlement between the Parties
Federal Trademark and Licensing Agreement infringement dispute regarding Flexible Flyer Sleds. Plaintiff sued Defendant for exceeding the terms and conditions of the License Agreement and sought Recess ... ion of the Agreement and other Remedies.
OUTCOME: Settled
Plaintiffs were the members of or the heirs to the estates of the members of the 1938 Harlem Renaissance Basketball Team. Defendant Converse, Inc. published a poster-sized photograph of eight of the gr ... eatest black players of the Depression Era, prominently featuring ("Wee") Willy Smith, Charles ("Tarzan") Cooper, Al Johnson, Eyre Saitch, John Holt, Clarence ("Fat") Jenkins, Lewis Badger and John Isaacs. The poster also had the Converse All-Star logo, the slogan "Made from Genuine Heritage" and a photograph of Converse's classic Chuck Taylor basketball shoe underneath the photograph of the Team. Plaintiffs sued for violation of their "Rights of Publicity."
OUTCOME: 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
Petitioners manufactured and sold home video tape recorders. Respondents owned the copyrights on some of the television programs that are broadcast on the public airwaves. Some members of the gener ... al public used video tape recorders sold by petitioners to record some of these broadcasts, as well as a large number of other broadcasts. The question presented was whether the sale of petitioners' copying equipment to the general public violates any of the rights conferred upon respondents by the Copyright Act. also known as the “Betamax case”, is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs (referred to as VTRs in the case), cannot be liable for infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market as it created a legal safe haven for the technology. Ironically, the popularity of VCRs significantly benefited the film industry through the sale of pre-recorded movies. The broader legal consequence of the Court's decision was its establishment of a general test for determining whether a device with copying or recording capabilities ran afoul of copyright law. This test has created some interpretative challenges to courts in applying the case to more recent file sharing technologies available for use on home computers and over the Internet.
OUTCOME: 464 U.S. 238 (1984): Screenwriters "Shield Privilege" Upheld See: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2150&context=plr
See: Real to Reel: The Hirsch Case and First Amendment Protection for Film-makers' Confidential Sources of Information http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2150&context= ... plr
OUTCOME: The Circuit Court granted Summary Judgement to Defendant, which was upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeals of Michigan, 108 Mich. App 428
Minors brought action against theatre owner for alleged discrimination based on age. The specific issues involved the movie industry's Classification and Rating Administration's "R" rated film attendan ... ce restrictions, which required an accompanying parent or adult guardian in order to be admitted to see the film.
OUTCOME: Statute Upheld: 496 F.Supp. 408 (1980)
"Blind bidding" is a term used in the motion picture industry to describe the licensing of a motion picture to a theater owner without the owner's first viewing the picture. Blind bidding and other pra ... ctices by which motion picture producers and distributors license their product to exhibitors 413*413 have been controversial and subject to varying degrees of governmental scrutiny at least since the 1940's, when the Supreme Court was asked to review a far-reaching judicial decree regulating them. United States v. Paramount, 334 U.S. 131, 157, 68 S.Ct. 915, 929, 92 L.Ed. 1260 (1948). The major producers and distributors of motion pictures joined together to bring this action against the Governor of Ohio challenging the Ohio enactment as unconstitutional. Citing the increasingly high costs of production and distribution of motion pictures together with the small cadre of extremely popular motion picture professionals, plaintiffs contend their practices are entirely reasonable and necessary to the presentation of excellent and financially successful motion pictures. They claim the Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and, as implicated by federal preemption in the areas of copyright and antitrust, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court holds that the Ohio Act survives constitutional attack.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
