Walter v Steinkopff

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtChancery Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
11 cases
  • Tcn Channel Nine v Network Ten
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Hubbard v Vosper
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 19 November 1971
    ...Kipling. The St. James Gazette took out half-a-dozen passages and published them as extracts. This was held to be an infringement, see Walter v. Steinkopff (1892) 3 Ch. 489. So also when the University of London published examination papers. The Tutorial Press took several of the paoers an......
  • Donald Campbell and Company, Ltd and Others v Pollak
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 1 February 1924
  • IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 22 April 2009
    ...per Dixon J; [1937] HCA 45; Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc (1986) 161 CLR 171 at 181 per Gibbs CJ; [1986] HCA 19.See also Walter v Steinkopff [1892] 3 Ch 489; Chilton v Progress Printing and Publishing Co [1895] 2 Ch 29; Odhams Press Ltd v London and Provincial Sporting News Age......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...or of review, which the plaintiff was producing. The court eventually found that the use was fair dealing). 51Walter v Steinkopff[1892] 3 Ch 489 at 495, per North J; Time Warner Entertainment v Channel Four Television Corp[1994] EMLR 1 at 13 (the court found that the purpose of the defendan......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT