Writing for the Web: words of warning
Pitfalls of Publishing a promotional site on the Worldwide Web
February 11, 1999 at 04:29 AM
5 minute read
Last autumn, before launching the WebVet Internet compliance product, lawyers from Edge Ellison's marketing services unit conducted a dipstick survey of UK-based websites to determine the level of legal protection they contained.
As the first UK firm with a product of this kind, a fixed-fee website vetting service (covering issues such as intellectual property rights, advertising clearance, trademarks, copyright and domain names), we needed to gauge the size of our likely market.
It was a fascinating – if alarming – exercise in market testing. We looked at a mixture of corporate sites and sites devoted to specific brands. They were mostly household names, many marketed globally by their parent companies.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Joseph J. Mueller and Rachel Bier of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have entered appearances for Omachron Alpha, Omachron Intellectual Property and SharkNinja Operating in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Kirkland & Ellis, asserts three patents in connection with SharkNinja's sale of the 'Vertex' and 'Stratos' cordless vacuum cleaners. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, is 1:24-cv-12373, Dyson, Inc. et al v. SharkNinja, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Shloime Fellig of Latham & Watkins has entered an appearance for Ardelyx the company's CEO and CFO in a pending securities class action related to Xphozah, a drug which treats kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. The complaint, filed Aug. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Pomerantz LLP, contends that the defendants failed to disclose that the company would not be seeking the drug’s acceptance into the Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, a bundled payment system regulated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin, is 1:24-cv-12119, Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Alexander P. Ott, Megan Corrigan and Karen Gover of McDermott Will & Emery have entered appearances for Analog Devices, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of semiconductor processing equipment, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, which asserts two patents, was filed July 9 in Massachusetts District Court by Arrowood LLP and the Devlin Law Firm on behalf of Ocean Semiconductors. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, is 1:24-cv-11759, Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices Inc.
Who Got The Work
Forrest M. 'Teo' Seger of Clark Hill has entered an appearance for Equifax Information Services in a pending lawsuit for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was filed Aug. 13 in Texas Western District Court by Halvorsen Klote on behalf of Quinton Humphrey. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, is 5:24-cv-00892, Humphrey v. LVNV Funding, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Winston & Strawn partners Amanda Groves and Shawn R. Obi have entered appearances for Wells Fargo Bank in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 13 in California Northern District Court by the Kazerouni Law Group and Kellett & Bartholow, contends that Wells Fargo overcharged tens of thousands of customers on their mortgage loan accounts and attempted to downplay liability by sending out 'cryptic' letters and cashier checks. According to the suit, the defendant's failure to disclose to customers how their accounts were overcharged or to provide any accounting or itemization of actual damages constitutes a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, is 3:24-cv-05105, Prado v. Wells Fargo & Company et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
