Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
510 U.S. 569 (1994) Cited 649 times 71 Legal AnalysesHolding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”
Blanch v. Koons
467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 137 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that a Jeff Koons painting that was created, in part, through scanning the plaintiff's photograph into a computer and incorporating the scanned image into the painting was transformative because the "copyrighted work [was] used as raw material in the furtherance of distinct creative or communicative objectives"
Chicago Bd. of Educ. v. Substance, Inc.
354 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 95 times 3 Legal AnalysesDenying fair use defense for a newspaper that published in their entirety six “secure” tests—tests that are generally kept secret—to demonstrate their shortcomings
Processed Plastic Co. v. Warner Communications
675 F.2d 852 (7th Cir. 1982) Cited 146 timesAffirming grant of preliminary injunction against infringer whose claims of hardship were speculative
Warner Bros., Inc. v. Gay Toys, Inc.
658 F.2d 76 (2d Cir. 1981) Cited 147 timesNoting that" § 43 of the Lanham Act is remedial in nature, and should be interpreted and applied broadly so as to effectuate its remedial purpose"
Billy-Bob Teeth, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc.
329 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 59 timesHolding that a third-party infringer lacked "standing" to contest the validity of an oral assignment that was later confirmed in writing
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books
575 F. Supp. 2d 513 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) Cited 47 times 5 Legal AnalysesTaking judicial notice of copyrights but concluding the plaintiffs could "not establish infringement of these works . . . because neither work was entered into evidence, and they are not before the Court" (internal footnote omitted)
D C Comics, Inc. v. Powers
465 F. Supp. 843 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) Cited 30 times 3 Legal AnalysesNo. 78 Civ. 4597 (KTD). December 7, 1978. Weiss, David, Fruss Lehrman, New York City, Cowan, Liebowitz Latman, New York City, for plaintiff; Michael Davis, New York City, Carol F. Simkin, Mitchell Alan Frank, New York City, of counsel. David S. Fitzpatrick, Michael F. Schwartz, New York City, for defendants Jerry Powers and The Daily Planet, Inc. OPINION AND ORDER KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, District Judge: This is a trademark action involving use of the name Daily Planet both as the title of a news publication
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 23,110 times 16 Legal AnalysesProviding for service via CM/ECF Systems
Section 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
17 U.S.C. § 107 Cited 1,035 times 177 Legal AnalysesNoting that the third factor concerns "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"
Section 815 ILCS 510/2 - Deceptive trade practices
815 ILCS 510/2 Cited 411 times(a) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of his or her business, vocation or occupation, the person: (1) passes off goods or services as those of another; (2) causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services; (3) causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection or association with or certification by another; (4) uses deceptive representations or designations
Section 815 ILCS 510/1
815 ILCS 510/1 Cited 396 times 2 Legal AnalysesAs used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "article" means a product as distinguished from a trademark, label or distinctive dress in packaging; (2) "certification mark" means a mark used in connection with the goods or services of a person other than the certifier to indicate geographic origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy or other characteristics of the goods or services or to indicate that the work or labor on the goods or services was performed by members