47 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.
529 U.S. 205 (2000) Cited 771 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive
Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories
456 U.S. 844 (1982) Cited 1,258 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
464 U.S. 417 (1984) Cited 967 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding identical copying of videotapes under unique circumstances of case “[did] not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use”
Parks School of Business, Inc. v. Symington
51 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 2,531 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a corporation had standing to sue under § 1981 alleging that defendants discriminated against it because it contracts with racial minorities
Neilson v. Union Bank of California, N.A.
290 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (C.D. Cal. 2003) Cited 689 times
Holding that plaintiffs could prevail if they could prove at trial that certain transfers made pursuant to a Ponzi scheme were made within the limitations period of California's UFTA
A M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 738 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions
Ellison v. Robertson
357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 655 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"
Lockheed Martin. v. Network Solutions
194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 627 times
Holding that the court must consider “the extent of control exercised by the defendant over the third party's means of infringement”
Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
11 Cal.4th 376 (Cal. 1995) Cited 520 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the tort of intentional or negligence interference with prospective economic advantage requires that a defendant's interference be wrongful "by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself
Shively v. Bozanich
31 Cal.4th 1230 (Cal. 2003) Cited 246 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the applicable statute of limitations for a defamation action is one year under § 340(c)
Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Cited 17,833 times 315 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting unlawful business practices
Section 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
17 U.S.C. § 106 Cited 3,745 times 107 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”

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa International Service Association et al

47 Cited authorities

Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

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

Holding identical copying of videotapes under unique circumstances of case “[did] not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use”

Holding that a corporation had standing to sue under § 1981 alleging that defendants discriminated against it because it contracts with racial minorities

Holding that plaintiffs could prevail if they could prove at trial that certain transfers made pursuant to a Ponzi scheme were made within the limitations period of California's UFTA

Holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions

Holding that the court must consider “the extent of control exercised by the defendant over the third party's means of infringement”

Holding that the tort of intentional or negligence interference with prospective economic advantage requires that a defendant's interference be wrongful "by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself

Holding that the applicable statute of limitations for a defamation action is one year under § 340(c)

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

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”