| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc. ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.
''Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.'', 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011), is a case in American intellectual property law involving personal jurisdiction in the context of internet contacts.〔(), Full opinion from the Court〕〔Allan Ides. ''Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc.: Ninth Circuit Examines Personal Jurisdiction in the Context of Internet Contacts'', 2011 Emerging Issues 6095. LexisNexis (2011).〕
This case had three significant holdings. First, the defendant, Brand Technologies, Inc., lacked sufficient contacts with California for exercise of general jurisdiction. Second, the defendant's alleged copyright infringement on its website was expressly aimed at California enough to find specific jurisdiction. Finally, the defendant's alleged copyright infringement caused harm that it recognized was likely to be suffered in California enough to find specific jurisdiction.
==Facts==
In April 2008, photographers for Mavrix Photo, Inc., a Florida corporation whose principal business was in Miami, took "candid" photos of a hip-hop pop singer Fergie and her husband during their vacation in the Bahamas. Mavrix registered copyright of those photographs for its business to exclusively license them to celebrity news outlets. However, shortly thereafter, Mavrix found that Brand Technologies, Inc., an Ohio corporation, had put those photographs on to its website (www.celebrity-gossip.net), allegedly without Mavrix's permission. This website has several interactive features, and was ranked as number 3,622 out of approximately 180 million websites worldwide based on traffic by Alexa.com, an Internet tracking service. It was a prominently popular website.
Mavrix sued Brand Technologies, Inc. and its CEO, Brad Mandell (collectively, "Brand") in the Central District of California for infringement of copyright of its photographs. Many of the celebrities whom Mavrix took photos of worked in Southern California and Mavrix kept a Los Angeles base, employed Los Angeles-based photographers, and had a registered agent in California. In addition, it paid fees to the California Franchise Tax Board. Brand moved to dismiss the action on several grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|