Web13 Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982, 983 (9th Cir. 2008), aff'd by an equally divided court, 131 S. Ct. 565 (2010). SPRING 2011] 327. N.C. J.L. & TECH. sold globally.4 Costco obtained a quantity of these Omega watches from the New York company, ENE Limited.'" ENE Limited imported the watches from unidentified third … WebFacts:Watchmaker Omega S.A. sued Costco Wholesale Corp. when it bought a shipment of the Swiss-made watches from another importer and sold them for below Ome...
Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Nos. 11–57137
Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008), was a case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that held that in copyright law, the first-sale doctrine does not act as a defense to claims of infringing distribution and importation for unauthorized sale of authentic, imported watches that bore a design registered in the Copyright Office. It is contrasted with Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. WebJan 20, 2015 · Omega, global purveyor of luxury watches, filed suit against Costco for copyright infringement, alleging that Costco’s importation of Omega’s Seamaster … gea norway proff
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S. A. - Wikiwand
WebDec 16, 2010 · In Costco Wholesale Corp v Omega SA (Case 08-1423, December 13 2010), in a 4-4 per curiam ruling - with the newly appointed Justice Kagan recusing herself from the case, an evenly divided US Supreme Court affirmed without opinion the Ninth Circuit’s narrow interpretation of the first sale copyright exhaustion doctrine and, in so … WebSep 3, 2008 · OMEGA S.A., Nos. 07-55368 Plaintiff-Appellant, 07-56206 v. D.C. No. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, CV-04-05443-TJH Defendant-Appellee. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 15, … Webin Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A.29 by turning the Quality King dicta into a holding but that it failed to do so with its 4–4 vote.30 Having established that there was no direct precedential holding, Judge Cabranes analyzed the text of the first sale limitation.31 Like the district court, he focused on the meaning of the phrase “lawfully geanpapanf hotmail.com