The California Supreme Court issued the following decisions last week:
Hoffmann v. Young, et al., Case No. S266003: Under Civil Code section 846, landowners generally owe no duty of care to keep their property safe for...more
9/7/2022
/ Anti-SLAPP ,
Appeals ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Cal Code of Civil Procedure ,
Duty of Care ,
Free Speech ,
Offer-in-Compromise ,
Prejudgment Interest ,
Property Owners ,
Protests ,
Public Interest ,
Section 998 ,
Settlement Agreements ,
Visitors
We are spotlighting a published California Court of Appeal decision on rehearing for its analysis on contract and fraud claims arising out of a real estate transaction.
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate...more
We have previously written about the trademark dispute between Vortic - a watchmaker that restores antique pocket watches, and converts them into wrist watches - and the venerated Hamilton Watch Company, which produced its...more
Dorsey’s TMCA team has thoroughly covered the history of the dispute between the USPTO and Booking.com B.V., which started when the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board rejected the BOOKING.COM trademark as generic (covered...more
In three separate opinions, a panel of the Ninth Circuit revived a pro se plaintiff’s claim that defendants’ television series “Empire” infringed upon his copyrighted “treatment” for a television series entitled “King...more