19 Cited authorities

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
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”
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"
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"
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
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
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
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"
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"
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
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,861 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
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”
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"
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"

ALS Scan, Inc. v. Cloudflare, Inc. et al

19 Cited authorities

Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

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”

Holding that the court may "affirm on any ground supported by the record"

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

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

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

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"

Holding images and text on websites "are not statements at all—and thus fall outside the ambit of the hearsay rule"

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

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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”

Denying the safe harbor if the service provider receives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"

Requiring producers to "ascertain ... the performer’s name and date of birth"