19 Cited authorities

  1. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories

    456 U.S. 844 (1982)   Cited 1,261 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe
  2. Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana

    336 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 960 times
    Holding that the deprivation of rights secured by the Contract Clause may “give rise to a cause of action under section 1983” and that Carter “is not to the contrary”
  3. Ellison v. Robertson

    357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 659 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the district court erred in concluding on summary judgment that [the ISP] satisfied the requirements of § 512" because the record showed that the ISP "allowed notices of potential copyright infringement to fall into a vacuum and to go unheeded," indicating it "had not reasonably implemented its policy against repeat infringers"
  4. Perfect 10 v. Visa Intern

    494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 252 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court may "affirm on any ground supported by the record"
  5. Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc.

    76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 233 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that operators of a swap meet who had reason to know of infringing activity after law enforcement officers raided the flea market and seized counterfeit merchandise may be held liable for contributory trademark infringement
  6. Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions

    658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 146 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to prove willfulness in the copyright context, plaintiff must show that the defendant was actually aware of infringing activity, or that defendant's actions were the result of "reckless disregard" for, or "willful blindness" to, the copyright holder's rights
  7. Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd.

    762 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing district court's conclusion that applying Washington's Personality Rights Act to Jimi Hendrix's "limited, non-speculative" post-mortem right to publicity claim gave the statute an "impermissible extraterritorial reach" in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause
  8. Gershwin Pub. Corp. v. Columbia Artists Man

    443 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir. 1971)   Cited 418 times
    Holding that a defendant may "be held liable as a 'contributory' infringer if it were shown to have had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringing nature of the records"
  9. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc.

    213 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 72 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding images and text on websites "are not statements at all—and thus fall outside the ambit of the hearsay rule"
  10. Capitol Records, Inc. v. Mp3tunes, LLC

    821 F. Supp. 2d 627 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 29 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that MP3tunes could not be directly liable for violations of Publishers' public performance rights in musical compositions because MP3tunes did not use a master copy
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 329,812 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Section 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

    17 U.S.C. § 106   Cited 3,759 times   108 Legal Analyses
    Granting the owners of copyrights in “literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works” the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly”
  13. Section 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online

    17 U.S.C. § 512   Cited 575 times   186 Legal Analyses
    Denying the safe harbor if the service provider receives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"
  14. Section 2257 - Record keeping requirements

    18 U.S.C. § 2257   Cited 108 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Requiring producers to "ascertain ... the performer’s name and date of birth"