To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The COVID-19 relief package enacted on December 27, 2020, added two important new protections for copyright owners and content providers namely, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act and the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act.
The Streaming Act authorizes significant prison sentences and steep fines for commercial, for-profit streaming piracy services. The Act applies to services that were designed for streaming without the authority of the copyright owner, have no significant purpose besides unauthorized streaming, or are intentionally marketed to promote unauthorized streaming. Although it does not apply to individuals who use pirate streaming services, normal practices by online service providers, good faith business disputes or non-commercial activities, it provides an important new tool for thwarting the estimated $30 billion in annual losses due to criminal streaming services.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On December 16, 2020, on the heels of the FDA providing its emergency use authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued its much anticipated guidance concerning COVID-19 vaccines for employers. Although it may still take some months before vaccines become widely available, the EEOC’s guidance sheds light on some of the questions with which employers have been grappling, particularly with regard to the impact of various federal employment laws on employers’ vaccine-related policies and practices.
Resolving months of speculation, the EEOC’s guidance confirms that, generally speaking, employers may require employees to be vaccinated prior to returning to the workplace due to the ease with which COVID-19 spreads in confined environments. As the guidance puts it: “If a vaccine is administered to an employee by an employer for protection against co
Tech
your username
December 21, 2020
On Friday, opposer Bumble Holding Limited filed a trademark opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against Bithive Limited’s application for the subject design in International Classes 9 and 42. Bumble claimed that it would be harmed by the registration of this application because of the similarities between the marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion.
Applicant Bithive’s logo, as found in the complaint.
Bithive is an online platform where individuals can create virtual communities based on interest. Meanwhile, Bumble, a United Kingdom company, launched in the United States in 2014 and currently has over 100 million users worldwide. According to the opposition it is “an exceedingly popular online and mobile social network platform that facilitates connections for dating, friendship, and professional networking.” Bumble uses a variety of marks that consist of the word Bumble, such as Bumble, Bumble Date, BumbleB