Avrashkova v. Paul

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that registration of derivative work “was sufficient to permit an infringement action on the underlying parts, whether they be new or preexisting.”
• Lanham Act plaintiff must “prove actual damages and a causal link between those damages and the Lanham Act violation”
• owner of copyright in the collective work and underlying works was the same and therefore could maintain an action for infringement of the underlying works
• “Copyright 10 registration is a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing an action for infringement under the 11 Copyright Act.”
• “Imageline is entitled to one award of statutory damages per work infringed because SuperBundle and Master Gallery are compilations or derivative works in which Imageline holds copyrights, not because they are single registrations.” (emphasis removed)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).