(United States Ninth Circuit) - In the appeal of a breach of contract and copyright infringement case involving the movie 'The Purge,' the district court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a state law claim for breach of implied-in-fact contract, is affirmed where the breach of contract claim did not arise from an act in furtherance of the right of free speech since the claim was based on defendants' failure to pay for the plaintiff's idea, not the creation, production, distribution, or content of the films.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal insofar as it determined that a 2011 analysis of greenhouse gas emission impacts prepared as part of a project for the development of transportation infrastructure in San Diego was inadequate and required revision.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal for failure to state a claim allegations of First Amendment violations by the City of New York, but reversing as to Manhattan Community Access Corporation and its employees because public access TV channels are a public forum and the corporation and its employees were state actors when they fired workers who produced segments critical of the corporation.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's rejection of First Amendment violation claims brought by an exotic dancing venue complaining that a city regulates sexually oriented businesses differently than it does mainstream performances such as ballets and concerts, that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by barring 18 to 21 year olds from owning sexually oriented businesses, but finding that the district court erred in rejecting a claim that the denial provisions of the licensing regulation are an unconstitutional prior restraint, striking this provision from the Ordinance and remanding to consider its severability.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated claims for violation of California law copyrights possessed in certain musical performance sound recordings. The plaintiff copyright holders argued that their decision to remaster their pre-1972 analog sound recordings onto digital formats did not bring the remastered sound recordings exclusively under the ambit of federal law. Agreeing with the plaintiffs that their state law copyright claims were not preempted, the Ninth Circuit reversed the entry of summary judgment for the defendant radio broadcasters.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated a lawsuit alleging that a movie studio breached its collective-bargaining agreement with musicians who score motion pictures. The musicians' labor union contended that the movie studio breached the labor agreement by having the film Same Kind of Different As Me scored in Slovakia, rather than hiring union musicians in the U.S. and Canada. Finding genuine disputes of material fact, the Ninth Circuit reversed the entry of summary judgment for the movie studio and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Granted a new trial in a copyright case involving a claim that Led Zeppelin copied key portions of its hit Stairway to Heaven from a song written by a musician named Randy Wolfe. Held that several jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial, including the instructions on originality, and thus vacated the jury's verdict of no infringement.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated an injunction that prevented a movie producer from releasing a film about the rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd. Held that a consent order settling a 1988 lawsuit concerning band members' rights to make films about the band did not support the issuance of an injunction here.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, reinstated musical recording owners' claims that radio broadcasters violated their state law copyrights in pre-1972 analog sound recordings that were later remastered onto digital formats. Reversed the entry of summary judgment for the broadcasters and also reversed the striking of the plaintiffs' class certification motion.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of copyright infringement, in a lawsuit that involved copyrighted music recordings resold through an internet platform. The suit was brought by several record companies.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying Defendant’s motion to strike. Plaintiff represented deceased celebrity, Jenni Rivera, and they sought to restrict disclosure by Defendant broadcaster of certain information. Appeals court ruled the First Amendment protected broadcaster’s use of information and reversed trial court order.

(KS Supreme Court) - No. 114,937

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a vineyard-plaintiff's appeal of a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing its opposition to an application filed by defendant to register a MAYARI mark for use on wine, the Board's decision is affirmed where substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that plaintiff's registered mark MAYA and defendant's applied-for mark MAYARI are sufficiently dissimilar.

(United States First Circuit) - In an infringement action to determine whether a Puerto Rico credit union infringed a bank's word mark and trade name ORIENTAL with its competing marks COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, ORIENTAL POP, and CLUB DE ORIENTALITO, the District Court's finding of non-infringement and refusal to enjoin their use is: 1) reversed as to COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, and ORIENTAL POP, where the district court's determination of non-infringement was clearly erroneous; and 2) affirmed where the district court's determination is supportable as to CLUB DE ORIENTALITO.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition brought under the Lanham Act by a producer of karaoke music tracks, alleging that the defendants performed karaoke shows using unauthorized 'media-shifted' files that had been copied onto computer hard drives from the compact discs released by the plaintiff, the district court's dismissal is affirmed where plaintiff did not state a claim under the Lanham Act because there was no likelihood of consumer confusion about the origin of a good properly cognizable in a claim of trademark infringement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's summary judgment to the defendants in a trademark infringement suit, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether defendant's use of 'all-in-one' was protected by the fair use defense and that the district court erred in applying fair use analysis after determining that plaintiff presented no evidence of likely confusion.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversed the order to dismiss the plaintiff's copyright and trademark claims stemming from a songwriting contest. Plaintiff entered a songwriting competition and agreed to the terms of the contest rules including an arbitration provision. Plaintiff did not win the contest, but alleges that the song he submitted was used by defendant for a music video. The court held that defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and could not invoke its provisions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Judgment affirmed in favor of plaintiff regarding a trademark infringement matter. The court held that because of the delay of the defendant in challenging plaintiff's trademark, the doctrine of laches could be used as a defense. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply the doctrine of unclean hands or the inevitable confusion doctrine against plaintiff.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed summary judgment for an apparel company in its trademark infringement action. A company that sold leather jackets branded ROGUE contended that a commercial brewery that sold ROGUE-branded beer had infringed its trademark by using the name on t‐shirts and hats. The Second Circuit held that the apparel company was not entitled to summary judgment, because the brewery was the senior user and the evidence did not show that it was precluded by laches.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that greeting-card companies were not entitled to summary judgment against a trademark infringement suit. The companies insisted that they did not violate the Lanham Act by producing greeting cards that contained phrases similar to one trademarked by a comedy writer who had posted a popular YouTube video known for its catchphrase Honey Badger Don't Care. However, the Ninth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact, and thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the comedy writer's claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that greeting-card companies were not entitled to summary judgment against a trademark infringement suit. The companies insisted they did not violate the Lanham Act by selling greeting cards that contained phrases similar to one trademarked by a comedy writer. However, the Ninth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact, and thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the comedy writer's claims.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the First Amendment's commercial speech protections entitled a company to operate automotive service centers under the name "Tire Engineers," even though a state board that licenses engineers objected to the use of the profession's occupational title. Reversed and rendered summary judgment in favor of the company, in this declaratory judgment action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Remanded for recalculation of an attorney fee award in a trademark infringement action, in which one nonprofit organization accused another of stealing its logo. Both organizations endorse political candidates.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Gatorade's use of the slogan "Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company" was fair use protected by the Lantham Act in a suit alleging trademark violations filed by SportsFuel.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. Finding no clear error in the district court’s determination that Defendant’s trademark infringement was willful, the award of gross profits was proper. However, the question of attorney’s fees and pre-judgement interest is remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Supreme Court) - Revived a maritime tort lawsuit against manufacturers of turbines and other equipment for three Navy ships. Family members of two deceased Navy veterans claimed that the manufacturer violated a duty to warn sailors of the health risks faced from asbestos fibers released into the air. The U.S. Supreme Court found merit in the plaintiffs' contentions. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for a 6-3 majority, clarifying the circumstances in which a duty to warn exists in the maritime context.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a securities law case, held that someone who is directed by a boss to make a misstatement may potentially be liable for it. A senior-level investment banker who allegedly made knowingly false statements in emails to prospective investors claimed that his boss had told him what to say, so he could not be held responsible. Disagreeing, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that his conduct could fall within the scope of federal securities laws, upholding a ruling of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of a 6-2 Court (Justice Kavanaugh not participating).

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the Tennessee Valley Authority is subject to suits challenging any of its commercial activities, just as if it were a private corporation supplying electricity. The TVA insisted that, as a government-owned corporation, it has sovereign immunity from all tort suits arising from its performance of so-called discretionary functions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Kagan.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private citizen cannot sue one State in the courts of another. Overruled Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which had held that a State may grant or deny its sister States sovereign immunity as it chooses. The plaintiff here sought to bring a tort suit against a California state agency in Nevada state court. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution barred the suit. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified when federal law will preempt a state law claim that a drug manufacturer failed to warn consumers of a drug's risks. Held that this preemption question is one for a judge to decide, not a jury. Also spelled out the "clear evidence" standard that applies in this context. Justice Breyer, joined by five justices, delivered the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion in this product liability lawsuit against a drugmaker.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that Title VII's charge-filing requirement is not jurisdictional and thus is subject to forfeiture if tardily asserted. The issue involved whether an employer waited too long to dispute that a discrimination plaintiff filed a proper complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before initiating suit. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the circumstances in which a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect a debt that a bankruptcy discharge order has immunized from collection. Held that there should be "no fair ground of doubt" that the order barred the creditor's conduct. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private entity operating public access cable TV channels was not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. The producers of a controversial documentary film contended that the nonprofit corporation running the public access channels was a state actor because it was exercising a function traditionally exclusively reserved to the State, and therefore was subject to suit for violating their free speech rights. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed whether the Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits unsolicited fax advertisements that promote free goods, such as no-cost magazine subscriptions and catalogs. The specific issue here had to do with whether the district court was required to adopt the Federal Communications Commission's interpretation of the statute. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that it found the question difficult to answer, and remanded with directions for the lower courts to resolve two preliminary issues. Justice Breyer delivered the Court's opinion.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the limits of a State's power to tax a trust. Struck down a North Carolina requirement that a trust must pay income tax to the State whenever the trust's beneficiaries live in the State -- regardless of whether the beneficiaries have received, can demand, or will ever receive a distribution of trust income. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, in this due process challenge brought by a family trust.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiff is a Vietnam veteran who sought disability benefits from the Veterans Administration for post-traumatic stress. The VA eventually granted benefits but only from the motion to re-open his case and not from the date of the original application. Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling citing the deference doctrine. The US Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to have the lower court determine if the deference doctrine applied in this case.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the government's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act. However, the sole stated reason for reinstating the question "seems to have been contrived," and therefore it was appropriate to remand the case back to the agency on that ground. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court's opinion, some portions of which were unanimous while others received the support of only four justices in various groupings.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denied an immigrant's petition for review of a removal decision, in a case involving specific immigration provisions affecting the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which is a U.S. territory. The Philippines citizen had arrived there as a lawful guest worker.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant plead guilty to one count of transporting illegal aliens. He claimed district court erred by applying sentence enhancements. Appeals court found no error.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective counsel granted in part and denied in part. BIA applied a “clear probability” standard, rather than a “more likely than not” standard, when considering protection under the Convention Against Torture Act. Remanded to district court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed a misdemeanor conviction for eluding examination or inspection by immigration officers in violation of 18 USC section 1325. Held that an alien that crosses into this country at a non-designated place of entry is not guilty of eluding examination, because such conduct must occur at a designated examination place.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition for review denied. Defendant's conviction for “strangulation” was categorically a crime of violence making him removable and ineligible for asylum; substantial evidence supported the Board of Immigration’s denial of withholding of removal and relief.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Dismissed. The government appealed the district court’s granting in part of a motion to enforce a 1997 settlement agreement guaranteeing minors in the custody of immigration agencies be held in facilities that are safe and sanitary. The panel dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court did not modify the agreement.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The Oklahoma misdemeanor of transporting a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle is not one of the firearms offenses listed in the USC making an alien statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design