List of copyright case law

Last updated

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

Australia

Canada

France

India

Japan

New Zealand

United Kingdom

United States

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Circuit Court rulings are binding within a certain portion of it (the circuit in question); District Court rulings are not binding precedent, but may still be referred to by other courts.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/YearFindings
Wheaton v. Peters 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 5911834There is no such thing as common law copyright and one must observe the formalities to secure a copyright.
Folsom v. Marsh 9. F.Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841)1841 Fair use.
Baker v. Selden 101 U.S. 991879 Idea-expression divide.
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony 111 U.S. 531884Extended copyright protection to photography.
White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company 209 U.S. 11908Reproduction 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. 3391908No license to use copyrighted material. License cannot extend holder's rights beyond statute defined by Congress.
Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell 229 U.S. 11913Differences 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. 1914Limits of fair use with respect to an educational context and to summaries.
Nutt v. National Institute Inc. 31 F.2d 236 2d Cir. 1929It is not the subject that is protected by copyright. It is the treatment of a subject that is protected.
Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. 45 F.2d 119 2d Cir. 1930No copyright for "stock characters".
Cain v. Universal Pictures 47 F.Supp. 1013 S. Dist. Calif 1942 Scènes à faire
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)1948–9No moral rights in public domain works.
Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. 191 F.2d 99 2d. Cir. 1951Variations 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. 1951–2Derivative 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. 2281952Provided wide latitude to judges when determining legal remedies based on the facts of the case.
Mazer v. Stein 347 U.S. 2011954Extended copyright protection to applied art.
Irving Berlin et al. v. E.C. Publications, Inc. 329 F. 2d 541 2d. Cir. 1964Parody.
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists 392 U.S. 3901968Television 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.
Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co 429 F.2d 1106 9th Cir. 1970Copyright may be infringed when total concept and feel is the same
Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States 487 F.2d 1345 Ct. Cl. 1973Libraries' photocopying for research was fair use.
Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken 422 U.S. 1511975Playing a radio broadcast of a copyrighted work at a business was not copyright infringement Radio reception does not constitute a "performance" of copyrighted material.
Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop 533 F.2d 87 2d Cir. 1976The essence of infringement lies in taking not a general theme but its particular expression
Gilliam v. American Broadcasting 538 F.2d 14 2d Cir. 1976 Moral rights infringed by unauthorized editing of TV show
Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. 562 F.2d 1157 9th Cir. 1977Extrinsic and intrinsic tests may be used to determine substantial similarity
Wainwright Securities v. Wall Street Transcript Corp 558 F.2d 91 2d Cir. 1977The essence or purpose of legitimate journalism is the reporting of objective facts or developments, not the appropriation of the form of expression used by the news source
Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 650 F.2d 1365 5th Cir. 1981A writer's research is not copyrightable.
Schnapper v. Foley 667 F.2d 102 D.C. Cir. 1981Affirmed that copyright exists for works created by contractors for the US government.
Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman 669 F.2d 852 2d Cir. 1982Copyright on computer programs includes images and sounds as well as the computer code.
See v. Durang 711 F.2d 141 9th Cir. 1983Copying deleted or so disguised as to be unrecognizable is not copying
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. 714 F.2d 1240 3rd Cir. 1983Computer 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. 4171984Products with substantial non-infringing uses (video recorders) may be sold even if they can be used illicitly. Private, non-commercial recording of programs for time-shifting purposes is fair use.
Selle v. Gibb 741 F.2nd 896 7th Circ 1984Where there is lack of evidence of access, access can be inferred only if striking similarities preclude independent creation
Dowling v. United States 473 U.S. 2071985Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally made copies are not stolen goods.
Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises 471 U.S. 5391985The 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. 1986Parody of song performance is legitimate fair use
Whelan v. Jaslow 797 F.2d 12223rd Cir. 1986Copyright protection of computer programs may extend beyond the programs' literal code to their structure, sequence and organization
Broderbund v. Unison 648 F. Supp. 1127, 1133N.D. Cal. 1986Copyright may extend to the look and feel of a computer program's display
Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. 663 F. Supp. 706 S.D.N.Y. 1987Derivative works.
Salinger v. Random House 811 F.2d 90 2d Cir. 1987An author has a right to protect the expressive content of his unpublished writings for the term of his copyright, and that right prevails over a claim of fair use under "ordinary circumstances"
Anderson v. Stallone 11 USPQ2D 1161 C.D. Cal 1989Derivative works.
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid 490 U.S. 7301989Works for hire.
Wright v. Warner Books 953 F.2d 731 2d Cir. 1991Sparing use of creative expression from unpublished letters and journals may constitute fair use
Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corporation 758 F. Supp. 1522 S.D.N.Y. 1991Articles copied for educational use are not necessarily fair use.
Advent Sys. Ltd. v. Unisys Corp 925 F.2d 670, 675-76 3d Cir. 1991The 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. 1991The 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. 3401991Affirmed the need for a minimal amount of creativity before a work is copyrightable. "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 1991Music sampling is generally copyright infringement.
Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology 939 F.2d 91 3rd Cir. 1991The 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. Established the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test, which lays out the steps to follow when extricating copyrightable expression from uncopyrightable elements of the same work.
Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. 780 F. Supp. 1283 9th Cir. 1992Consumers 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. 1994Certain components of computer programs' graphical user interfaces are not copyrightable.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S. 5691994Commercial parody can be fair use.
Carter v. Helmsley-Spear Inc. 861 F. Supp. 303 S.D.N.Y., 1994Interpreting 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)).
United States v. LaMacchia 871 F.Supp. 535 D. Mass 1994Gave rise to LaMacchia Loophole where criminal charges of fraud or copyright infringement would be dismissed, so long as there was no profit motive involved. The NET Act was passed in 1997 as a direct response to LaMacchia.
Lotus v. Borland 49 F.3d 807 1st Cir. 1995Software 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. 1995Renewal rights are not assignable.
Religious Technology Center v. Netcom 907 F. Supp. 1361 N.D. Cal. 1995Immunity of copyright liability for Internet Intermediaries.
Twin Books Corp. v. Walt Disney Co. 83 F.3d 1162, 38 9th Cir. 1996Foreign works published before 1978 did not establish US copyright until published in the US or with US copyright formalities.
Applied Info. Mgmt., Inc, v. Icart 976 Supp. 149, 155 E.D.N.Y. 1997The 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. 1998Jurisdiction 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 1998Internal 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. 1999Giving a public speech is not public-domain publication under the 1909 Copyright Act.
Microsystems Software, Inc. v. Scandinavia Online AB District Court of Massachusetts 2000Settled out of court; illustrated problems of reverse engineering and the need for clear copyright notices in IT code
Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. 2000 US Dist. Lexis. 9975 SD Tex. 2000The first-sale doctrine applies to software.
UMG v. MP3.com 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5761 S.D.N.Y. 2000Distribution 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. 2001Knowingly 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. 4832001Freelance 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. 2001The first-sale doctrine applies to software.
Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin 252 F. 3d 1165 11th Cir. 2001Parody and fair use.
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes 273 F.3d 429 2d Cir. 2001Affirmed 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. 2001A 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 336 F.3d 811 9th Cir. 2003Thumbnails and inline linking can be fair use.
Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. 539 U.S. 232003 Trademark cannot preserve rights to a public domain work.
Eldred v. Ashcroft 537 U.S. 1862003Congress 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. 2004Internet service provider was found not liable for copyright infringement of photographs uploaded by subscribers, despite the screening process by an 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.
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films 410 F.3d 792 6th Cir. 2005No de minimis exception for sampled music. "Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way."
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S. 9132005Distributors 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. 2006Thumbnails 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. 2007DMCA 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. 2007A case about secondary copyright infringement
Kahle v. Gonzales No. 04-17434 9th Cir. 2007Congress did not alter the "traditional contours of copyright protection" by permitting automatic extension of copyrights.
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 N.D. Cal. 2008Rights holders must consider fair use before issuing a takedown notice. If the notice is issued in bad faith, the rights holder could be held liable for misrepresentation.
MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment 629 F. 3d 928 9th Cir. 2010Addressing whether certain unlicensed acts are copyright infringement or merely violations of contract.
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick 559 U.S. 1542010Failure to register a copyright does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.
Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. CV 10–133–M–DWM–JCL; 2011 WL 1882780 D. Mont. 2011The safe harbor provision of the DMCA does not provide a cause of action against service providers that take down videos.
Cambridge University Press v. Becker 1:2008cv01425 N.D. Ga. 2011University's use of copyrighted material in e-reserves does not constitute direct or vicarious infringement.
Golan v. Holder 565 U.S. ___
(132 S. Ct. 873)		2012Congress may retroactively restore copyright in works that have fallen into the public domain. The Constitution gives broad discretion to Congress to decide how best to promote the "progress of science and the useful arts"
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 133 S. Ct. 13512013The first-sale doctrine applies to copies of copyrighted works lawfully made abroad.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fiduciary</span> Person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. One party, for example, a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to another party, who, for example, has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, financial advisers, financial planners, and asset managers, including managers of pension plans, endowments, and other tax-exempt assets, are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation, good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fixture (property law)</span> Legal concept; physical property which is permanently attached to real property

A fixture, as a legal concept, means any physical property that is permanently attached (fixed) to real property. Property not affixed to real property is considered chattel property. Fixtures are treated as a part of real property, particularly in the case of a security interest. A classic example of a fixture is a building, which, in the absence of language to the contrary in a contract of sale, is considered part of the land itself and not a separate piece of property. Generally speaking, the test for deciding whether an article is a fixture or a chattel turns on the purpose of attachment. If the purpose was to enhance the land, the article is likely a fixture; if the article was affixed to enhance the use of the chattel itself, the article is likely a chattel.

<i>Théberge v Galerie dArt du Petit Champlain Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Théberge v Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc[2002] 2 S.C.R. 336, 2002 SCC 34 is one of the Supreme Court of Canada's leading cases on copyright law. This case interprets the meaning of "reproduction" within the Copyright Act of Canada, and touches on the moral rights to copyrighted material and how much control an author has over his work once it is in the hands of a third party.

Section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to legislate with respect to "foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth". This power has become known as "the corporations power", the extent of which has been the subject of numerous judicial cases.

<i>Apple Computer, Inc. v. Mackintosh Computers Ltd.</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Mackintosh Computers Ltd. [1990] 2 S.C.R. 209, is a Supreme Court of Canada case on copyright law regarding the copyrightability of software. The Court found that programs within ROM silicon chips are protected under the Copyright Act, and that the conversion from the source code into object code was a reproduction that did not alter the copyright protection of the original work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 51(xxxi)</span> Section of the Constitution of Australia

Section 51(xxxi) is a subclause of section 51 of the Constitution of Australia.

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian contract law</span>

The law of contract in Australia is similar to other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions.

<i>Telstra Corporation Ltd v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd</i>

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd was a 2001–2002 case in the Federal Court of Australia in which Telstra successfully argued that its copyright had been infringed by the reproduction of data from the White and Yellow Pages telephone directories in CD-ROM format.

An interlocutory injunction is a court order to compel or prevent a party from doing certain acts pending the final determination of the case. It is an order made at an interim stage during the trial, and is usually issued to maintain the status quo until judgment can be made.

Economic loss is a term of art which refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person which is seen only on a balance sheet and not as physical injury to person or property. There is a fundamental distinction between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss, as pure economic loss occurs independent of any physical damage to the person or property of the victim. It has also been suggested that this tort should be called "commercial loss" as injuries to person or property can be regarded as "economic".

Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.

The copyright law of Australia defines the legally enforceable rights of creators of creative and artistic works under Australian law. The scope of copyright in Australia is defined in the Copyright Act 1968, which applies the national law throughout Australia. Designs may be covered by the Copyright Act as well as by the Design Act. Since 2007, performers have moral rights in recordings of their work.

<i>Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment</i>

Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment, was a decision of the High Court of Australia concerning the "anti-circumvention" provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. The appellant, Stevens, had sold and installed modchips that circumvented the Sony PlayStation's copy protection mechanism. Sony argued that Stevens had knowingly sold or distributed a "circumvention device" which was capable of circumventing a "technological protection measure", contrary to s 116A of the Copyright Act.

In Canada, the Copyright Act provides a monopoly right to owners of copyrighted works. This implies no person can use the work without authorization or consent from the copyright owner. However, certain exceptions in the Act govern circumstances where a work will not be held to have been infringed.

Fair dealing is a statutory exception to copyright infringement, and is also referred to as a user's right. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, it is more than a simple defence; it is an integral part of the Copyright Act of Canada, providing balance between the rights of owners and users. To qualify under the fair dealing exception, the dealing must be for a purpose enumerated in sections 29, 29.1 or 29.2 of the Copyright Act of Canada, and the dealing must be considered fair as per the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada.

<i>Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc, 2007 SCC 37, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 20, is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on Canadian copyright law, specifically on the issue of indirect infringement and its application to parallel importation. Kraft Canada sued Euro-Excellence Inc. for copyright infringement due to their importation of Côte d’Or and Toblerone chocolate bars from Europe into Canada. A majority of the court found that the copyright claim could not succeed, although they split on whether the claim failed due to the rights of an exclusive licensee or due to the scope of copyright law.

<i>Computer Edge v. Apple</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Computer Edge v. Apple was a decision handed down by the High Court of Australia on 6 May 1986, concerning copyright in computer software.

<i>Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd</i> Australian court case

Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd was one of three Federal Court of Australia judgments in the 1990s involving the use of copyright law in Australia relating to Indigenous cultural and intellectual property (ICIP), the others being Yumbulul v Reserve Bank of Australia (1991) and Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles (1998), or "T-shirts case".

<i>IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd is a 2009 decision of the High Court of Australia concerning the application of copyright law to a compilation of television schedules broadcast by the Nine Network and published by IceTV.

References

  1. ↑ Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor [1937] HCA 45 , (1937) 58 CLR 479 (26 August 1937), High Court (Australia).
  2. ↑ Cuisenaire v Reed [1963] VicRp 96 , [1963] VR 719(7 August 1962), Supreme Court (Vic,Australia).
  3. ↑ Pacific Film Laboratories v Commissioner of Tax [1970] HCA 36 , (1970) 121 CLR 154(9 October 1970), High Court (Australia).
  4. ↑ Zeccola v Universal City Studios Inc [1982] FCA 241 , (1982) 46 ALR 189(26 November 1982), Federal Court (Australia).
  5. ↑ Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc [1986] HCA 19 , (1986) 161 CLR 171(6 May 1986), High Court (Australia).
  6. ↑ CBS Records v Gross [1989] FCA 404 , (1989) 15 IPR 385(28 September 1989), Federal Court (Australia).
  7. ↑ Greenfield Products Pty Ltd v Rover-Scott Bonnar Ltd [1990] FCA 111 , (1990) 17 IPR 417(11 April 1990), Federal Court (Australia).
  8. ↑ Yumbulul v Reserve Bank of Australia [1991] FCA 332 , (1991) 21 IPR 481(25 July 1991), Federal Court (Australia).
  9. ↑ Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) ("AutoCAD case") [1993] HCA 6 , (1993) 176 CLR 300(21 April 1993), High Court
  10. ↑ Sega Enterprises Ltd v Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 761 , (1996) 69 FCR 268; 35 IPR 161(28 August 1996), Federal Court (Australia).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.