what Congress intended.”) In sum, while the Sybersound Records decision is most definitely authoritative, it is far from persuasive. Instead, this court agrees that “[t]he determination of whether a grant is exclusive or nonexclusive depends on the grant.” 1-6 Nimmer on Copyright § 6.10[A][2][d]; see also Patry on Copyright § 5:103 (“[Congress] intended that co-owners be able to grant nonexclusive licenses without the others’ permission and that they be able to transfer their proportional share in the whole without the others’ permission", in which case the transferee would indeed stand in the shoes of the transferor.”) Here, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, Messrs. Ciraldo and Swaint’s grant of their inte ., 471 U.S. 539, 561, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Hence, the central issue is whether this
holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense holding that nominative fair use is an affirmative defense to a prima facie case of likelihood of confusion similar to the fair use defense recognizing nominative fair use as an affirmative defense to trademark infringement holding that laches is an affirmative defense holding that fair use is an affirmative defense