18+

... And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free ... John 8.32
The number of registered new users today: 433
The number of registered files today: 264
List of copyright case law
List of copyright case law

List of copyright case law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is a list of cases that deal with issues of concern to copyright in various jurisdictions. Some of these cases are leading English cases as the law of copyright in various Commonwealth jurisdictions developed out of English law while these countries were colonies of the British Empire. Other cases provide background in areas of copyright law that may be of interest for the legal reasoning or the conclusions they reach.
Contents [hide]
1 Australia
2 Canada
3 France
4 New Zealand
5 United Kingdom
6 United States
7 See also
Australia

Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co. Ltd v. Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479 idea-expression divide
Cuisenaire v. Reed [1963] VR 719 (a literary work cannot be infringed by a three-dimensional reproduction)
Pacific Film Laboratories v. Commissioner of Tax (1970) 121 CLR 154 [negative right definition]
Elanco v. Mandops (1979) FSR 46 (instructions on herbicide are a literary device)
Zeccola v. Universal City Studios Inc. (1982) 46 ALR 189: there is no copyright in the idea of a theme or a story, but there may be a time where a combination of events and characters reaches sufficient complexity as to give rise to dramatic work copyright
Computer Edge Pty Ltd v. Apple Computer Inc (1986) 161 CLR 171 (test in Exxon for literary work is "not intended to establish a comprehensive or exhasutive definition of literary work for copyright purposes" per Mason and Wilson JJ)
CBS Records v. Gross (1989) 15 IPR 385 (a cover version of a song can be an original work itself capable of copyright protection)
Greenfield Products Pty Ltd v. Rover-Scott Bonnar Ltd (1990) 17 IPR 417 per Pincus J, what is not a sculpture
Autodesk v. Dyason (No.2) (1993) 111 ALR 385 (the idea-expression divide is the "dominant principle in copyright law" per Mason CJ: "when the expression of any idea is inseparable from its function, it forms part of the idea and is not entitled to the protection of copyright" per Dawson J)
Sega Enterprises Ltd v. Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd 35 IPR 161 (1997): interactive video games involving computer images fall in the definition of cinematograph film
Canada

Muzak Corp. v. CAPAC [1953] 2 S.C.R. 45 Authorization as infringement.
Canadian Admiral Corp. v. Rediffusion Inc. [1954] Ex. C.R. 382 performance in public
Cuisenaire v. South West Imports Ltd. [1968] 1 Ex C.R. 493
Snow v. The Eaton Centre Ltd. (1982) 70 C.P.R. (2d) 105 (Ont. H.C.): moral rights
Apple Computer Inc. v. Mackintosh Computers Ltd. [1987] copyright in computer programs
DRG Inc. v. Datafile Ltd. (1987), 18 C.P.R. (3d) 538
Yumbulul v. Reserve Bank of Australia (1991) 21 IPR 481: "copyright law does not provide adequate protection of Aboriginal community claims to regulate the reproduction and use of works which are essentially communal in origin"
Prise de Parole Inc. v. Guerin [1995] F.C.J. No. 1583: Moral rights
Gould Estate v. Stoddart Publishing Co. Ltd. (1996), 74 C.P.R. (3d) 206
Delrina Corp. v. Triolet Systems Inc. (2002) Ontario
Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc. [2002] 2 S.C.R. 336 Canadian definition of "reproduction".
Robertson v. Thomson Corp. (2004) Ont. CA republication of collective works in electronic databases
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada 2004 SCC 13 (established that setting up the facilities that allow copying does not amount to authorizing infringement)
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers 2004 SCC 45 (ISPs as common carriers. Status of caches)
BMG Canada Inc. v. Doe 2005 FCA 193 (privacy rights of filesharers)
France

Societe Le Chant du Monde v. Societe Fox Europe and Societe Fox Americaine Twentieth Century Cour d'appel, Paris, Jan. 13, 1953, D.A. 1954, 16, 80, held in favor of the plaintiffs due to the very strong moral rights regime in France.
New Zealand

Green v. Broadcasting Corp of NZ (1989) APIC 90-590: Privy Council definition of "dramatic works": " a dramatic work must have sufficient unity to be capable of performance"
United Kingdom

Gyles v Wilcox (1740) 3 Atk. 143; 26 Eng. Rep. 489 (a fair abridgement of a work is not copyright infringement)
Millar v. Taylor (1769) 4 Burr 2303; 98 ER 201 (copyright is a form of property)
Donaldson v. Beckett (1774) 4 Burr 2408; 98 ER 257 (copyright is not perpetual)
Dick v. Yates (1881) 18 Ch D 76: a title is not long enough to consistute a literary work
Kenrick v. Lawrence (1890) L.R. QBD 99
Hollingrake v. Truswell [1894] Ch. 420
Walter v. Lane (1900) AC 539 ("reporter's copyright")
Corelli v. Grey (1913) 29 TLR 570 (four reasons for clear objective similarity between works)
University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd. [1916] 2 Ch. 601
Re Dickens (1934) 1 Ch 267
Hawkes & Son (London) Ltd v. Paramount Film Service Ltd [1934] 1 Ch 593: the Colonel Bogey case - infringement of copyright occurs when "a substantial, a vital and an essential part" of a work is copied, per Lord Slesser
Jennings v. Stephens [1936] Ch. 469 "performance in public" as infringement.
Donahue v. Allied Newspapers Ltd (1938) Ch 106 [ "idea-expression divide"]
Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v. William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964]1 WLR 273
LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd. [1979] RPC 551 (the basis of copyright protection is that "one man must not be able to appropriate the result of another's labour")
Exxon Corp v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International (1981) 3 All ER 241 [Exxon name has no copyright]
Express Newspapers v. News (UK) Ltd (1990) 18 IPR 201 (confirming Walter v. Lane)
United States

    Wikisource has original text related to this article:
United States copyright case law
Note: if no court name is given, according to convention, the case is from the Supreme Court of the United States. Supreme Court rulings are binding precedent across the United States; Circuit Court rulings are binding within a certain portion of it (the circuit in question); District Court rulings are not binding precedent, but may still be referred to by other courts.
Case name    Reporter    Court/Year    Findings
Wheaton v. Peters    33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591    1834    There is no such thing as common law copyright and one must observe the formalities to secure a copyright.
Baker v. Selden    101 U.S. 99    1879    Idea-expression divide.
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony    111 U.S. 53    1884    Extended copyright protection to photography.
White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company    209 U.S. 1    1908    Reproduction of the sounds of musical instruments playing music for which copyright granted not a violation of the copyright.
Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus    210 U.S. 339    1908    No license to use copyrighted material. License cannot extend holder's rights beyond statute defined by Congress.
Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell    229 U.S. 1    1913    Differences between patent and copyright defined also prohibits a license from extending holder's rights beyond statute.
Macmillan Co. v. King    223 F. 862    D.Mass. 1914    Limits of fair use with respect to an educational context and to summaries.
Nichols v. Universal Pictures Co.    45 F.2d 119    2d Cir. 1930    No copyright for "stock characters".
Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.    196 Misc. 67, 80 N.Y.S.2d 575 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948), aff'd 275 A.D. 692, 87 N.Y.S.2d 430 (1949)    1948–9    No moral rights in public domain works.
Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc.    191 F.2d 99    2d. Cir. 1951    Variations of works in the public domain can be copyrighted if the new "author" contributed something more than a "merely trivial" variation, but no large measure of novelty is necessary.
National Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications    191 F.2d 594 (1951), clarified 198 F.2d 927 (1952)    2d Cir. 1951–2    Derivative works; an author does not forfeit his copyright to a piece of intellectual property if his work is contracted to another who fails to properly copyright works which incorporate the original property (obsoleted by Copyright Act of 1976).
F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc.    344 U.S. 227    1952    Provided wide latitude to judges when determining legal remedies based on the facts of the case.
Mazer v. Stein    347 U.S. 201    1954    Extended copyright protection to applied art.
Irving Berlin et al. v. E.C. Publications, Inc.    329 F. 2d 541    2d. Cir. 1964    Parody.
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists    392 U.S. 390    1968    Television broadcasters "perform" copyrighted works. Viewers do not perform. CATV was more like a viewer than a broadcaster and did not infringe when rebroadcasting copyrighted works.
Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States    487 F.2d 1345    Ct. Cl. 1973    Libraries' photocopying for research was fair use.
Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken    422 U.S. 151    1975    Playing a radio broadcast of a copyrighted work at a business was not copyright infringement Radio reception does not constitute a "performance" of copyrighted material.
Schnapper v. Foley    667 F.2d 102    D.C. Cir. 1981    Affirmed that copyright exists for works created by contractors for the US government.
Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman    669 F.2d 852    2d Cir. 1982    Copyright on computer programs includes images and sounds as well as the computer code.
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.    714 F.2d 1240    3rd Cir. 1983    Computer software is protected by copyright (affirmed and obsoleted by subsequent legislation).
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (the "Betamax case")    464 U.S. 417    1984    Products with substantial non-infringing uses (video recorders) may be sold even if they can be used illicitly.
Dowling v. United States    473 U.S. 207    1985    Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally-made copies are not stolen goods.
Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises    471 U.S. 539    1985    The interest served by republication of a public figure's account of an event is not sufficient to permit nontransformative fair use.
Fisher v. Dees    794 F.2d 432    9th Cir. 1986    Parody of song performance is legitimate fair use
Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.    663 F. Supp. 706    S.D.N.Y. 1987    Derivative works.
Anderson v. Stallone    11 USPQ2D 1161    C.D. Cal 1989    Derivative works.
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid    490 U.S. 730    1989    Works for hire.
Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corporation    758 F. Supp. 1522    S.D.N.Y. 1991    Articles copied for educational use are not necessarily fair use.
Advent Sys. Ltd. v. Unisys Corp    925 F.2d 670, 675-76    3d Cir. 1991    The sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp    929 F.2d 1147, 1150    6th Cir. 1991    The sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service    499 U.S. 340    1991    "Sweat of the brow" alone is not sufficient to bestow copyright.
Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc.    780 F. Supp. 182    SDNY 1991    Music sampling is generally copyright infringement.
Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology    939 F.2d 91    3rd Cir. 1991    The need to characterize the transaction as a license to use software is "largely anachronistic.".
Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc.    982 F.2d 693    2d Cir. 1992    "Substantial similarity" is required for copyright infringement to occur.
Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.    780 F. Supp. 1283    9th Cir. 1992    Consumers may modify purchased computer games for their own use.
Rogers v. Koons    960 F.2d 301    2d Cir. 1992    Fair use and parody.
MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.    991 F.2d 511    9th Cir. 1993    RAM ("working memory") copies of computer programs are governed by copyright.
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.    35 F.3d 1435    9th Cir. 1994    Certain components of computer programs' graphical user interfaces are not copyrightable.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.    510 U.S. 569    1994    Commercial parody can be fair use.
Carter v. Helmsley-Spear Inc.    861 F. Supp. 303    S.D.N.Y., 1994    Interpreting moral rights provisions of U.S. Visual Artists Rights Act (overturned for other reasons: 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 1824 (1996)).
Lotus v. Borland    49 F.3d 807    1st Cir. 1995    Software interfaces per se are "methods of operation" and are not covered by copyright.
Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church    59 F.3d 902, 910    9th Cir. 1995    Renewal rights are not assignable.
Religious Technology Center v. Netcom    907 F. Supp. 1361    N.D. Cal. 1995    Immunity of copyright liability for Internet Intermediaries.
Applied Info. Mgmt., Inc, v. Icart    976 Supp. 149, 155    E.D.N.Y. 1997    The sale of software is the sale of a good. Case was dropped.
Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.    153 F.3d 82    2d Cir. 1998    Jurisdiction with closest association to putative owner applies to determine copyright ownership.
The Yankee Candle Co. v. New England Candle Co.    14 F.Supp.2d 154    District Court of Massachusetts 1998    Internal structure does not qualify as "building" under 17 U.S.C. § 101.
Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation    36 F. Supp. 2d 191    S.D.N.Y. 1999    "Slavish copying" is inherently uncreative and cannot confer copyright.
Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.    194 F.3d 1211    11th Cir. 1999    Giving a public speech is not public-domain publication under the 1909 Copyright Act.
Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc.    2000 US Dist. Lexis. 9975    SD Tex. 2000    The first-sale doctrine applies to software.
UMG v. MP3.com    2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5761    S.D.N.Y. 2000    Distribution of copyrighted music without permission of the copyright holders is infringement even if the downloader already owns a copy of the music.
A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.    239 F.3d 1004    9th Cir. 2001    Knowingly failing to take steps to prevent infringement, while benefiting from said infringement, is grounds for contributory infringement. Also, users of file-sharing services infringe by both uploading and downloading works without permission.
New York Times Company v. Tasini    533 U.S. 483    2001    Freelance journalists did not grant electronic republication rights for collective work.
SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc.    CV 00-04161 DDP (AJWx)    C.D.C.A. 2001    The first-sale doctrine applies to software and cannot be waived or taken away through an end-user license agreement.
Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin    252 F. 3d 1165    11th Cir. 2001    Parody and fair use.
Universal v. Reimerdes    273 F.3d 429    2d Cir. 2001    Affirmed the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Cong. Int'l    241 F.3d 398, 416    5th Cir. 2001    A private organization cannot assert copyright protection for its model codes, after the models have been adopted by a legislative body and become the law.
Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation    280 F.3d 934    3d Cir. 2002    Thumbnails and inline linking can be fair use.
Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.    539 U.S. 23    2003    Trademark cannot preserve rights to a public domain work.
Eldred v. Ashcroft    537 U.S. 186    2003    Congress may retroactively extend the duration of works still under copyright, as long as the extension is limited.
CoStar v. LoopNet    373 F.3d 544    4th Cir. 2004    Internet service provider was found not liable for copyright infringement of photographs uploaded by subscribers, despite the screening process by a employee of the Internet service provider before the photographs were stored and displayed.
Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.    03-16987 D.C. No. CV-01-04626SBA/JL OPINION    9th Cir. 2005    End User License Agreements on a physical box can be binding on consumers who signal their acceptance of the license agreement by opening the box.
Golan v. Gonzales    No. 01-B-1854, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6800    D.Co. 2005    Congress may not retroactively restore copyright in works that have fallen into the public domain (a contrary principle in patent case law being held inapplicable to copyright).
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.    545 U.S., 125 S. Ct. 2764    2005    Distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software can be liable for copyright infringement if there are "affirmative steps taken to foster infringement".
Perfect 10 v. Google Inc    416 F. Supp. 2d 828    C.D. Cal. 2006    Thumbnails in Web searches were fair use. Framed inline images of full size were not infringing copies. (9th circuit reversed the DC's holding of no Fair Use)
Perfect 10 v. CCBill LLC    488 F.3d 1102    9th Cir. 2007    DMCA notification procedures place the burden of policing copyright infringement on the owners of the copyright. CDA Section 230 means only “federal intellectual property," and does not include state right of publicity claims.
Perfect 10 v. Visa    494 F.3d 788    9th Cir. 2007    A case about secondary copyright infringement
Kahle v. Mukasey    No. 04-17434    9th Cir. 2007    Congress did not alter the "traditional contours of copyright protection" by permitting automatic extension of copyrights.

Register your author's rights and get the full juridical protection.

Copyright Registration will cost - $ 20

Public offer - read carefully before registration!

F.A.Q SciReg

Copyright Registration

Recent Publications
reg № 835949586
песня "Вообще замерз"
More >>
reg № 280300298
песня "Маленькая штучка"
More >>
reg № 213322032
песня "Princess Anastasia"
More >>
reg № 8006475
песня "У каждого есть свой ангел на небесах"
More >>
reg № 92132013
Видеозапись "Свадьба Артура и Валентины"
More >>
Terms of use
Article 1. Contracting parties.
1. The Parties of this Public Offer (paid service agreement), hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement” or “Offer”, are, as follows:
a) Executor is a person, who makes this Offer and who executes this Agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions: Solcity World Investment and Development; and
b) Customer is a person, who accepts this Offer and who is the author of any publication.

Article 2. Acceptance.
1. The Customer shall accept this Offer in case of and after the following activities:
a) fill in and send to the Executor an application in electronic format in the form established by this Agreement and posted on the Executor’s official website; and
b) provide the author’s abstract specifying what material was created by the author; and
c) provide a list of all key words (tags) that enable finding the location of the author’s abstract of the Customer on the Executor’s website; and
d) post (“upload”) the material itself on the Executor’s official website; and
e) pay for the Executor’s services in the amount and following the procedure set forth by this Agreement.
2. The Executor shall verify the Customer’s data and post the information about the Customer and his/her work of authorship on SciReg.org in Internet. From this moment on, the Customer shall be considered as an acceptor of this Offer and a Party to this Agreement.
3. The Executor shall be entitled, without giving any reasons, to refuse the Customer to accept this Offer and the Customer unconditionally, entirely and irrevocably agrees with this provision.

Article 3. Scope of the Agreement.
1. The Executor hereof shall render services on establishing, formation and maintenance of the Copyright register in electronic format on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
2. The Executor hereof shall render to the Customer paid services on posting (publishing) of information about the applicant as the author of the material under the terms and in accordance with this Agreement.
3. The work of authorship shall be understood by the Parties as a subject matter of copyright established by the Civil Code or other laws of the Author’s Country of domicile. 
4. The Executor shall publish information (data), hereinafter referred to as the “summary”, about the applicant as the author of the material in the Register posted on the Executor’s official website in Internet under the terms set forth by this Agreement.
5. The Executor shall be entitled, at his own discretion and without coordination with the Customer, to assign his obligations for execution of this Agreement to any third party, and the Customer unconditionally agrees with this provision.


Article 4. Register.
1. The Register shall be an ordered and standardized register containing a summary of the Customer: Author’s information, including co-authors, name of the work of authorship, publication date, author’s abstract revealing the content of the work of authorship and its unique character, as well as a unique number of posting in the Register assigned to the author and his/her material automatically by the Executor, key words (tags) that enable any person to find information about the author and his/her publication posted in the Register on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
2. The author’s abstract shall be a brief description of the author’s publication designating its unique character and showing that the Customer is its author.
3. The Register shall be maintained in electronic form on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
4. Information about the author, work of authorship and other information required by the rules for information posting in the Register, set forth by the Executor, except for the unique number, shall be posted by the Customer individually on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
5. Both the Register and the official website shall be the Executor’s property.
6. Any and all information posted by the Customer in the Register in accordance with the terms set forth by this Agreement shall be the Executor’s property. Hereby, the Customer shall not transfer copyright for his/her work of authorship to the Executor.
7. The rules for maintenance of the Register, its execution, posting of any details (information) in it shall constitute Appendix 1 to this Agreement forming an integral part hereof. The rules shall be issued exclusively by the Executor. The Executor, without coordination with the Customer and the Customer’s consent, shall have the right to make any changes in and/or amendment to the Register maintenance rules and the Customer unconditionally agrees with this provision. The Register maintenance rules shall be unconditionally mandatory for the Customer.

Article 5. Obligations of the Parties.
1. The Parties hereto shall (hereby shall be obliged to) unconditionally, voluntarily, conscientiously, and accurately follow all provisions of this Agreement, as well as any and all supplements, amendments and/or alterations hereto made under the terms set forth by this Agreement.
2. The Customer shall pay for the Executor’s services following the procedure and in the amount established by this Agreement.
3. The Customer, in contemplation of his/her death, shall be obliged to bind defendants to the terms of this Agreement.
4. If the Customer’s copyright is assigned to a third party, he/she shall be obliged to bind such third party to his/her obligations hereunder.
5. The Customer shall have an exclusive right to refer, in any form, to his/her summary (synopsis, author’s abstract) posted in the Register on the Executor’s official website in Internet in case of complete and fair execution of his/her obligations under this Agreement.

Article 6. Payment for the Executor’s services. Agreement price.
1. The Customer shall pay for the Executor’s services following the procedure and in the amount established by the provisions of this Article.
2. The price for one posting by the applicant of one his/her summary in the Register shall be 20 (twenty) US Dollars – price of this Agreement.
3. The procedure for paying the amount set forth by this Article of the Agreement shall be determined in Appendix 1 to this Agreement.
4. The applicant shall pay the amount stated in para 2 of this Article (pay for the Executor’s service) to the Executor at the time of registration.
5. The amounts paid hereunder by the Customer to the Executor shall be nonreturnable.
6. Each Party shall individually pay any and all own taxes, duties and/or fees established by the legislation of the Party in connection with execution of the terms hereof by the Party. Neither party shall be a fiscal agent of the other Party.

Article 7. Withdrawal from the Agreement.
1. The Customer shall be entitled to withdraw from execution of this Agreement in the form of non-payment of a next settlement set forth by this Agreement.
2. The Executor shall have the right, including in his sole discretion, to withdraw from execution of this Agreement without reimbursement to the Customer of any expenses and/or losses (damages), as well as without payment of any penalty and/or penalty fee and/or any other forfeit, and the Customer unconditionally and entirely agrees with this provision, in the following case (cases):
a) failure to pay by the Customer for the services to the Executor in the amount and under the terms set forth by this Agreement; and/or
b) provision of false information by the Customer; and/or
c) any other technical reasons.

Article 8. Information sharing. 
1. Unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, the Parties hereto may share information, and this information for the Parties shall be regarded as official, by phone, fax, sms, Skype, via e-mail and/or in writing (in hard copy). 
2. The Parties hereto may share documents and these documents shall be legally effective for the Parties and considered properly received by the Parties by fax, Skype, via e-mail, in writing in hard copy, unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement. A signature affixed to the document forwarded by any Party via e-mail shall be accepted by the Parties. A signature affixed to the document forwarded by any Party by fax shall be accepted by the Parties. A signature affixed to the document forwarded by any Party via Skype shall be accepted by the Parties.
3. Along with the afore-mentioned, the Parties may have electronic documentary interchange and affix their electronic digital signatures (EDS) on any and all documents.

Article 9. Arbitration.
1. All disputes arising between the Parties in relation to interpretation of this Agreement and/or execution of this Agreement shall be settled by the Parties in the form of bilateral negotiations. 
2. If the Parties fail to reach a compromise during negotiations, they shall settle their dispute in the arbitration court (arbitration) of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of British Virgin Islands.
3. As the rules of procedural law based on which the Parties shall settle their dispute, the Parties shall accept the rules of arbitration court (arbitration) of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of British Virgin Islands.
4. As the rules of substantive law based on which the Parties settle their dispute, the Parties shall accept this Agreement and rules of international agreements (conventions) regulating copyright legal relationship.

Article 10. Other terms and conditions.
1. This Agreement is made in written and electronic form, in one counterpart, which: 
a) Agreement in writing is kept in the Executor’s office, and 
b) posted in electronic form on the Executor’s official website in Internet.
2. Alteration, amendments and/or supplements to this Agreement shall be made in written and electronic form by the Executor individually, in a single hard counterpart and a single electronic counterpart posted on the official website in Internet and the Customer unconditionally agrees with this provision. 
3. Changes in this Agreement shall be made by the Executor as a new version of the Agreement.
4. If the Customer disagrees with new terms and conditions, he/she shall have a right to withdraw from the Agreement following the procedure and terms set forth by this Agreement.

NEWS: most visited

Leonid Minaev, registered "песня "Кто хвост привел уже не важно""
reg № 694933103, 2014-01-27 16:01:21

автор песни (музыка и слова) Леонид Леонидович Минаев. Песня написана и записана 24-27 января 2014 г. Прилагается архив с рабочей записью с файлом формата mp3 частота 44,1KHz 16bit 192kbps и текстом песни «Кто хвост привел уже не важно».

read: >>>

RUSLAN ZAKIROV, registered "основной логотип школы сёрфинга"
reg № 25558759, 2012-04-23 20:19:23

лого сёрф-школы La Presiosa (первой русской школы ) основанной в 2002 г на сев побережье Доминиканской респубрики , городе Рио Сан Хуан (RSJ) , местечке Rincon del Pirata - Русланом Закировым . оф. сайт : www.surfschool.ru

read: >>>

Геннадий Ибраев, registered "Универсальный пневматический минихлопкоподборщик"
reg № 517634083, 2013-04-27 03:43:06

Хлопок - наиболее распространенное натуральное волокно. Со сбором хлопка связана жизнь более 200 миллионов людей более чем из 70 стран мира; еще 60 миллионов человек заняты на различных предприятиях по переработке плодов растения в собственно хлопковую ткань, а также по получению субпродуктов (масло семян или белки, используемые в производстве питания для животных). Хлопок является самой выращиваемой непищевой культурой - более 20 миллионов тонн ежегодного производства хлопкового волокна получают из растений, занимающих 30 миллионов гектаров

read: >>>

NEWS: news copyright

Sunbeam Ruling Strengthens Rights of IP Licensees in Bankruptcy JULY 27, 2012 BANKRUPTCY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYSunbeam Ruling Strengthens Rights of
read: >>>

copyright search online copyright patent trademark search wipo patent search us copyright patent and registration patent and trademark trademark registration registered trademark search copyright office trademark registration patent search patent application search search for trademark name copyright search copyright registration form patent trademark office patent registration india us trademark search for copyright trademark name online copyright registration uspto search patent office search patent search online how to trademark patent and registration intellectual property patent trademark registration registered trademark search

Global Info  |  Service Info  |  About SciReg  |  Investor Relations  |  Careers  |  Privacy Policy
This site is protected by copyright and trademark laws under US and International law. All rights reserved. © 1995-2012 SciReg
Printable version