Talk:Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 15:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Importance
err... so, what is this article? Is this about a legal dispute? Does it belong here? Graft


 * Yes, this is an important article in a developing area of copyright disputes taht center around names. We've just gotten off on this area of law, I think a page called, let's say list of leading legal cases in copyright law (various jurisdictions) would like to this article and others. Do you have any other suggestions for cases that might go there, or maybe a better title for the article (there is already a large list of United States Supreme Court cases, which in the scheme of things is jus the law of one out of approximately 200 countries of the world)? Also, I am not certain, but I think this case may belong on: list of Judicial Committees of the Privy Council & House of Lords cases as well.Alex756


 * Alex, do you think its worthwhile going into detail on legal cases? It seems to me to be opening a new and very very big can of worms. I mean, before I'd do the Exxon case I'd be looking at Re Dickens [1934] 1 Ch 267, Corelli v Grey (1913) 29 TLR 570, or even Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service 111 S Ct 1282 (1991). Which I don't really want to do as I'd be here forever. If its the done thing here to provide preces on cases, then cool: but you're setting a high standard by suggesting that we start on significant copyright cases...especially when you and I are still tidying up pages like entertainment law and filling in the gaps. I hope this comment is not perceived as discouraging or too negative - its just that when I saw this I just felt like I was at the bottom of a huge mountain! Cheers - David Stewart 10:56 May 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * David, in general your comments are useful, but I am not worried about setting the bar too high. I'd rather do that than not have Wikipedia give such an important area as copyright law its due. As you can see from the link that I've highlighted in your comment above there already is a detailed summary regarding Feist because it is a US Supreme Court case. As Commonwealth jurists don't we owe it to those who use Wikipedia to try to make it a little less Ameri-centric? This is an issue that I run across on talk pages often when reading roughly written law articles that deal exclusively with US law from a very limited idea of what common law v. civil law means. I think you have already contributed to this new list! Any more suggestions (feel free to post the citations on the new page I've started, we can always flesh out the cases later). I do think this case is important as it weighs in on the debate concerning the ownership of copyright in traditional cultures and the preservation of things like oral traditions and folk dances. Alex756 12:04 May 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - I see your point. I'll add some cases to your list. David Stewart 12:17 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

Ship?
They changed the name of the ship, but not the company, I think. Mark Richards 18:20, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Even "Exxon Insurance Consultants" ? -- User:Docu

Don't know. Sorry. Mark Richards 18:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Disputed facts
I don't think I have access to most of the reports cited, but I read The Times report. It doesn't seem to confirm the various statements that are tagged citation needed, and indeed casts doubt on the suggestion that the court found "there is no copyright in a name, invented or otherwise,", or that the court made a finding about trademark law. Could someone please find inline citations for the disputed sentences? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)