A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news

Supreme Court: Police Officers Need a Warrant to Search an Arrestee’s Cell Phone
By Anton Ziajka – Edited by Sarah O’Loughlin

On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court decided that police officers “must generally secure a warrant before conducting . . . a search of the information on a cell phone” seized from an individual who has been arrested. Slip op. at 10. Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Roberts found that an officer’s search of a cell phone “implicate[s] privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of . . . physical items.” Id. at 17.

Read More...

Posted On Jul - 7 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

European Court of Justice Upholds Individuals’ “Right to Be Forgotten”
By Anton Ziajka – Edited by Insue Kim

In a ruling last May, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) interpreted the EU’s Data Protection Directive, 95/46/EC, to affirm an individual’s “right to be forgotten.” The ECJ held that an Internet search engine is obligated, in response to an individual’s request, to erase from its search results links to webpages that contain “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive” information that relates personally to the individual.

Read More...

Posted On Jul - 1 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

Basaaly Moalin, Convicted of Supporting Terrorist Organization, Challenges NSA’s Electronic Surveillance
By Anton Ziajka – Edited by Elise Young

United States v. Moalin

Basaaly Moalin, a Somali immigrant who was convicted of conspiring to provide material support to the terrorist group al-Shabaab, filed a motion for a new trial. Moalin based his motion upon facts that surfaced during congressional hearings held in response to Edward Snowden’s release of information about the U.S. government’s electronic surveillance programs. The government filed a response and opposition.

Read More...

Posted On Oct - 20 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Britain’s Court of Appeal Rejects Cadbury’s Trademark Application for Color Purple
By Anton Ziajka – Edited by Abhilasha Nautiyal

Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Cadbury UK Ltd.

The Britain Court of Appeals held that Cadbury’s purple color mark did not qualify as a trade mark under the Trade Marks Directive of 2008, since the impugned mark did not constitute “a sign” that is “graphically represented.” To allow registration of the trademark with such vagueness, the Court noted, would offend both “the principle[s] of certainty…[and] of fairness.”

Read More...

Posted On Oct - 11 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
books

Creating full-text s

Creating full-text searchable database of copyrighted works is “fair use” By ...

Hacked By Over-X

European Union Court

European Union Court of Justice Holds that Individuals Browsing Websites ...

Photo By: André Natta - CC BY 2.0

Georgia Supreme Cour

Georgia Supreme Court Takes Chan v. Ellis Appeal to Redefine ...

Icon-news

Federal Circuit Flas

By Kellen Wittkop Appeal of a contempt order for violation of ...

invisalign-braces

ITC’s review of an

ITC’s review of an ALJ’s order was not procedurally sound By ...