<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bon Jovi&#8217;s motion to dismiss defendant&#8217;s Lanham Act and misappropriation of name counterclaims denied</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/06/bon-jovis-motion-to-dismiss-defendants-lanham-act-and-misappropriation-of-name-counterclaims-denied/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/06/bon-jovis-motion-to-dismiss-defendants-lanham-act-and-misappropriation-of-name-counterclaims-denied/</link>
	<description>A copyright law blog covering litigation, policy and academia</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:29:41 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JOLT Digest &#187; AFL Philadelphia LLCl v. Krause &#124; Harvard Journal of Law &#38; Technology</title>
		<link>http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/06/bon-jovis-motion-to-dismiss-defendants-lanham-act-and-misappropriation-of-name-counterclaims-denied/comment-page-1/#comment-32759</link>
		<dc:creator>JOLT Digest &#187; AFL Philadelphia LLCl v. Krause &#124; Harvard Journal of Law &#38; Technology</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:10:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exclusiverights.net/?p=1935#comment-32759</guid>
		<description>[...] Ex©lusive Rights and Shannon Duffy provide summaries of the case, paying particular attention to Judge Baylson&#8217;s inclusion of Bon Jovi song references in the opinion. An earlier post by Ex©lusive Rights summarizes the ongoing Pennsylvania State Court litigation between the same parties.  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Ex©lusive Rights and Shannon Duffy provide summaries of the case, paying particular attention to Judge Baylson&#8217;s inclusion of Bon Jovi song references in the opinion. An earlier post by Ex©lusive Rights summarizes the ongoing Pennsylvania State Court litigation between the same parties.  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 3 Count: No Bias Here &#124; PlagiarismToday</title>
		<link>http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/06/bon-jovis-motion-to-dismiss-defendants-lanham-act-and-misappropriation-of-name-counterclaims-denied/comment-page-1/#comment-32705</link>
		<dc:creator>3 Count: No Bias Here &#124; PlagiarismToday</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:14:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exclusiverights.net/?p=1935#comment-32705</guid>
		<description>[...] 3: Bon Jovi’s motion to dismiss defendant’s Lanham Act and misappropriation of name counterclaims d... [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 3: Bon Jovi’s motion to dismiss defendant’s Lanham Act and misappropriation of name counterclaims d&#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
