Copyright Commerce and Culture

The new complaint (750k PDF), filed in the United States District Court in San Francisco and obtained by Yahoo! Sports, argues that, “Mr. Robertson’s collegiate image continues to be licensed without his consent to this day … and sold for profit without approval by Mr. Robertson, and without any opportunity for him to participate in the licensing opportunity generated by the use and sale of his own collegiate image.”

The NCAA has argued they maintain the rights to a players’ likeness forever in legal briefings. It believes it, its marketing arm – Collegiate Licensing Company – and partner companies Thought Equity Motion and Collegiate Images, LLC are compliant with the law. The organization did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the additional complaints, although it traditionally rejects comment until it has time to review legal documents.

At stake is a share of the estimated $4 billion market for collegiate licensed merchandise, a business that has exploded over the last 15 years.

(6) charg[ing] a content, application, or service provider for access to the broadband Internet access service providers' end users based on differing levels of quality of service or prioritized delivery of Internet protocol packets; (7) prioritiz[ing] among or between content, applications, and services, or among or between different types of content, applications, and services unless the end user requests to have such prioritization... (9) refus[ing] to interconnect on just and reasonable terms and conditions.

Not only do the vast majority of the subsequent generations of Bratz dolls differ in their hairstyles and fashions … but they lack any meaningful similarities outside of ideas."

MGA seriously cut back on Bratz after the original ruling (why build toys that a competitor gets to own?) and many retailers stopped carrying the line as it wasn't clear what was going to happen.