Category: Uncategorized

What’s Happening In The Intellectual Property World?

One thing that always keeps us interested in intellectual property is its huge role in everyday life. People of all ages are exposed to a staggering amount of material each day that is protected (or protectable) by copyright, trademark, and patent law.

But what’s really interesting is that this exposure actually helps to shape the law. Where do people that know your brand live? What do people associate with your brand? Are they confused between your work and someone else’s?

The answers to these questions and others like it can help businesses decide whether to expand. They can determine whether a band will have enough in royalties to retire comfortably, or if they’ll need to keep working.

So in spite of some appearances to the contrary, the law can be highly practical… highly influenced by the world around it… and as you probably know by now, it can be high stakes.

RIP to Pabst Blue Ribbon?

Imagine a world without Pabst Blue Ribbon, Old Milwaukee, Cold 45, Schlitz, Tsingtao, or Stroh’s. You may not care about any Pabst Brewing Company’s (“PBC”) 20+ historic beer brands, but you probably know a college student and/or hipster who does.

And that world could soon be a reality. Because as this is being written, PBC is currently duking it out in court against MillerCoors. At issue is PBC’s very existence.

The two conglomerates entered into an agreement in 2001 in which MillerCoors would brew PBC’s beers. As MillerCoors is the only brewery with the willingness and capacity to do so, it ultimately kept PBC in business. In return, it got a piece of the younger PBC demographic it craved.

The deal is due to end in 2020, with a window built in to negotiate an extension. But PBC has alleged that MillerCoors is attempting to sabotage the agreement. Claims against the latter include fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of anti-competition laws. If MillerCoors doesn’t brew PBC’s beers, PBC says it will have to shut down its operations—a move which MillerCoors is trying to engineer with its underhanded activities.

On its behalf, MillerCoors claims that it has the right to decide whether to keep brewing PBC’s beers, and that doing so has become more costly. PBC’s beers are brewed at a second brewery that MillerCoors may close in the face of rising competition and the strong popularity of craft brews. However, MillerCoors says that if it keeps the second brewery open, PBC can stay.

A verdict (or settlement) is imminent, as the trial is scheduled to conclude at the end of this month.

The Napster of the Teens

Though Napster and swapping MP3s online might feel very retro, this sort of thing still goes on all the time. The difference is what people are sharing. These days, it’s video games more than music. Other than that, the same rules largely apply… as do the penalties.

A couple in Arizona just found this out the hard way. Through two different websites, the couple offered unofficial downloads of hundreds of popular games. Not surprisingly, a manufacturer of many of those games – Nintendo of America – brought suit against the couple.

The complaint suggested assessing the maximum damages allowed by law: $150,000 for each Nintendo game hosted on the site, and $2,000,000 per trademark violation. The total would be more than $100,000,000.

Recognizing the grimness of their situation, the defendants recently settled with Nintendo for $12.23 million – still far more than most people can afford, but a bargain compared to the original request.

Will the judgment ever be satisfied? It’s not likely. Even so, it has already been successful for Nintendo in terms of its deterrent effect. A number of sites similar to those run by the defendants voluntarily stopped operating after the suit was filed.

The Latest Celebrity Infringement Feud (for Now)

Some readers may remember folk musician Tracy Chapman’s hit “Fast Car” from the 1980s. Those who don’t have probably heard it sampled elsewhere.

Though it was Chapman’s biggest hit, it isn’t her only song. And recently, one of her compositions is gaining new exposure as the subject of a copyright infringement suit.

Chapman claims that Nicki Minaj’s song “Sorry” infringes Chapman’s “Baby Can I Hold You.” The suit alleges Minaj’s song samples Chapman’s without authorization. After the fact, Minaj’s team attempted to secure the rights from Chapman. Though Chapman never consented to the use of her song, a New York DJ premiered Minaj’s “Sorry” on his radio show, leading Chapman to file her lawsuit.

Chapman is looking to prevent third parties from using Minaj’s “Sorry.” She’s also seeking damages and profits. Minaj has yet to respond to the suit.

Do You Have Questions About Copyright or Other Intellectual Property Rights?

Our firm focuses on intellectual property and entertainment law, including copyright, trademark, and patent law. We would be happy to discuss your matter with you. Contact us at (561) 953-9300 or via our website.

Led Zeppelin Is Going To California – And Back To Court

There’s a lady who’s sure all that glitters is gold…

The question is, who gets the gold?

She’s Climbing the Stairway to the Courthouse (Again)

The music industry breathed a big sigh of relief two years ago when Led Zeppelin beat a lawsuit accusing the band of infringement in their anthem “Stairway to Heaven.” It was only a year after Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams “Blurred Lines” was found to infringe Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give it Up.” That decision had left the industry reeling, and so the stakes in the instant case felt even higher for music creators.

The jury decided in favor of Led Zeppelin quickly. At the time, experts noted that while there could be cause for the plaintiff to appeal, an appeal would probably be unsuccessful due to the stringent standard required.

In spite of facing an uphill battle – and additional legal costs – the plaintiff did indeed appeal…

And won on a few critical points.

(This happened after Thicke and Williams lost their appeal – again surprising the industry, and not in a good way.)

Parts of the decision have been vacated and the case remanded, leaving the parties and the court to start over. The parties need to reargue their cases, and the court needs to (a) treat certain evidence differently and instruct the jury more fully.

Has Led Zeppelin Infringed?

When one party accuses another of infringement, what does that actually entail?

There are two factors required for infringement: a valid copyright and the copying of protect aspects. The copying of protected assets requires (1) copying and (2) unlawful appropriation.

Take note of the fact that copying is required. It is possible for two people could separately dream up a song that sounds substantially similar with neither copying the other. Were such a coincidence to occur, there would be no infringement, because independent creation is complete defense.

Of course, to prove infringement (or any other case), you need evidence. Without direct evidence of the elements of copyright infringement, a plaintiff can try to prove their point with circumstantial evidence. In this case, they need to show that Led Zeppelin had access to the protected material and that the original composition in question, “Taurus,” and the copy (“Stairway to Heaven”) share probative similarities.

Now, let’s look at the second part of copying: unlawful appropriation. This requires substantial similarity. Such similarity(s) must include parts of the plaintiff’s work that are protected.

Whether substantial similarity exists can be determined by a pair of tests. The extrinsic test is an objective comparison test. It compares the individual copyrighted elements from the original with those of the copy. The intrinsic test is a more subjective comparison which seeks to know whether an average, reasonable listener would find a similar concept and feel between the original and the copy.

Available Protections Depend on When “Taurus” was Registered

“Taurus,” the song allegedly being infringed by Led Zeppelin, was registered with the Copyright Office in 1967; at that time, the Copyright Act had last been amended in 1909. In accordance with that version of the Act, whatever was deposited with the Copyright Office was what was to be protected. And the deposit copy consisted of sheet music.

In other words, the musical composition (the melody, the instruments, lyrics, and so forth) was filed and thus protected, but the sound recording wasn’t. The Copyright Act of 1909 didn’t account for sound recordings as deposit copies.

Because of this, the district court kept the music out of the courtroom and barred the plaintiff from playing it in front of the jury. The rationale was that it would’ve been too prejudicial, creating bias within the jury that could affect the outcome of the case.

The appellate court said this was improper. While the recording of “Taurus” couldn’t be played to show substantial similarity, the lower court should have allowed for it to be played to demonstrate access. Any confusion on the jury’s behalf as to how to use the recording should have been used could have been mitigated by a proper explanation.

And that’s not all…

The Jury Instructions Were Misleading

Small musical elements aren’t copyrightable per se. For instance, a single music note can’t be protected. But a collection of notes strung together certainly can.

The trial judge in this case instructed the jury that certain elements aren’t protectable, but failed to instruct that the selection and arrangement of unprotectable musical elements can be protectable.

This is especially problematic in light of the findings of one of the plaintiff’s experts. Using the extrinsic test, the expert found substantial similarity based on a combination of five elements. Some of those elements were in the public domain, but some were protectable.

A different instruction didn’t specify that the “original” part of a work need not be new or novel. However, the instruction did state that elements from public domain or prior works aren’t original, and therefore not protectable by copyright.

These omissions in the instructions weren’t technically incorrect, but the appellate court found them misleading. They suggested that notes strung together would not be copyrightable – even if they were arranged in an original, creative way, as “Taurus” was.

The court found this to be prejudicial. The conclusions a reasonable jury could draw from the instructions and their omissions completely disregard the expert’s findings of substantial similarity under the extrinsic test.

Ultimately, the decision was vacated in part and remanded for a new trial. (Read the full opinion here.)

And so the industry waits again for the outcome…

Do You Have Questions About Copyright or Other Intellectual Property Rights?

Our firm focuses on intellectual property and entertainment law, including copyright, trademark, and patent-related matters. We would be happy to discuss your matter with you. Contact us at (561) 953-9300 or complete our website form to schedule your free consultation.

New Boundaries For Copyright Law?

Here’s something we love about intellectual property law.

Technology has led to IP being shared more widely and easily than ever before. So even though the law itself can be slow to change, new potential matters pop up all the time.

What aspects of a photo need to be licensed? Who owns the laughing face emoji you just sent in a text? Those are just a couple of the modern copyright issues we tackle this month.


A recent federal court decision here in Florida is making waves in the legal community. In Pohl v. MH SUB I, LLC (2018 WL 3154467 Northern District of Florida, 2018), the plaintiff dentist sued a competitor for using the plaintiff’s “before and after” photos of his dental patients.

Though the plaintiff had already been granted copyright protection, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s photos didn’t qualify for it. The rationale was that the photos were utilitarian in nature and merely served to identify what someone could expect to get from the business.

In other words, the court said there was nothing original about the plaintiff’s photos. However, “originality” as required by the Copyright Act isn’t about doing something novel or creative; all it means is that the item sought to be copyrighted isn’t copied from somewhere else.

Moreover, it is difficult to quantify creativity and how much of it was required for the photos. To be sure, the images copied were close-up images of mouths. But many decisions were made in order to create them: who to model, what lighting to use, the camera angle, lipstick colors, and more. Are these not creative choices?

The possible implications of this case are massive when you consider other types of cases this ruling could impact. According to this reasoning, any photo that’s part of a reality-based ad campaign isn’t copyrightable.

We’re curious to see if the plaintiff will appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.


Should graffiti be copyright-protectable?

That question is at the heart of a lawsuit filed against General Motors by Adrian Falkner, the Swiss graffiti artist known as Smash 137.

Falkner had been commissioned several years ago to create a graffiti mural on a parking garage in Detroit. GM later did a photo shoot for a Cadillac ad campaign in front of the mural. Falkner didn’t authorize or even know about such use, so he filed his suit.

In theory, graffiti should enjoy strong copyright protection, as it is a fixed, tangible form of expression. Yet courts recently have been left to wrestle with a few issues that are far from clear. For example, should commissioned graffiti (like Falkner’s) enjoy more protection than unauthorized graffiti? And what constitutes protectable work? Do words on a bathroom wall deserve the same level of protection as Falkner’s work?

These “gray area” issues have yet to be resolved. Similar suits by other graffiti artists have been either settled out of court or dropped altogether.

For its part, GM defends that Falkner’s work isn’t copyrightable under 17 United States Code § 120(a), which states:

  • The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

GM argues that Falkner’s work is part of the architecture, and its placement outdoors on the parking garage makes it publicly visible.

Falkner’s lawyers counter that this exemption within the law was intended to allow the public to photograph and post images of significant structures like the Empire State Building or the Capitol Building in Washington DC. Moreover, to render Falkner’s work not copyrightable under this clause would mean that most graffiti couldn’t be protected, as it’s generally on buildings and often publicly visible.

It’s worth noting that the copyright in a work is separate from the object on which the work is embodied. This is a hurdle GM will need to address as the case progresses.

Like the Pohl case, the implications here could be big. We’ll be watching to see if this case goes to trial.


Whether you’re texting or on social media, emojis have become an important part of how we communicate.

But here’s a question…

At some point, someone invented emoji. So does the inventor (or someone they assigned their rights to) “own” them?

In other words, are emoji copyrightable? By whom? How are they compensated?

First, a quick history lesson. During the early days of the internet, people would use punctuation keys to create emoji (and sometimes still do).

Pictorial emoji – the earliest versions of the images we see today – were introduced in 1999 for the Japanese mobile network NTT DoCoMo. As users sent them back and forth to each other, they became a huge hit, and other mobile carriers started introducing them.

The problem was that each company that developed their emoji according to their own standards. This meant that if you sent an emoji from your phone to a recipient who was on a different mobile network, they may see something completely different than what you’d intended.

The Unicode Consortium addressed the issue in 2010 when it designated 78 emoji as the standard for everyone (many more have been added since). Today, when you send an emoji between mobile networks, you can be sure the person on the other end is seeing what you intended, though there still can be some differences.

Certain emoji are recognizably Apple emoji, recognizably Google’s version, and so forth. For example, you can see the nuances of different companies’ “face with rolling eyes” and “sad but relieved face” in Unicode Consortium’s Full Emoji List.

Keep in mind that emoji consist of computer code. All the companies use the same code to create, say, their grinning face emoji. The subtle differences in how they all look on the screen or page are what makes them copyrightable, to the extent they are.

So every mobile carrier owns their own emoji. This means you’re not supposed to use them for other purposes – like printing them on a mug or pillow, or using them as part of your own communications service. You’d want to use open source or free-license emoji for that sort of thing instead.

Having said that, any copyright protection for emoji is likely to be slim, given that they’re all derivative works of the same computer code. It’s difficult to know for certain how a court would rule, as there haven’t been any major cases about emoji and copyright infringement… yet.

Do You Have Questions About Copyright or Other Intellectual Property Rights?

Our firm focuses on intellectual property and entertainment law, including copyright, and would be happy to discuss your matter with you. Contact us at (561) 953-9300 or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.

IP Case Roundup: International Edition

It goes without saying that international laws aren’t a uniform concept. Trespassing in the US is a much different idea, for example, from trespassing in Scotland.

But then there’s intellectual property. This bundle of rights exists largely in the same form around the world. And ideally, IP would be treated equally and licensed correctly around the world. Of course, that’s not how things really happen.

A recent case that made headlines here in the US is a good illustration. There’s some interesting IP news coming out of the EU as well right now. Let’s dive in!


Have you ever wondered where the United States Postal Service (“USPS” or “postal service”) gets its images from for postal stamps?

It’s simple – they use stock photos (at least for some). But the matter becomes complicated when they choose the wrong ones.

This is what happened when the USPS issued its Statue of Liberty stamp in late 2010. The post office chose an image showing a zoomed-in shot of Lady Liberty’s face…

But the photo they chose wasn’t of the real Statue of Liberty. It was a replica which is installed at the New York New York casino in Las Vegas.

The postal service was alerted to its error in 2011 but acknowledged that it would have chosen the same image regardless. The USPS continued distributing the stamp until retiring it in 2014, leading the replica’s sculptor to sue for royalties.

The postal service argued that the sculpture wasn’t entitled to copyright protection because it was a mere replica of a famous sculpture. Moreover, the use of the image was protected under copyright’s fair use doctrine because USPS derived little benefit from using the replica.

Robert Davidson, the sculptor, argued that his sculpture was sufficiently distinct from the original due to his attempts to feminize Lady Liberty’s face. (You can compare the images side by side here.) The US Court of Federal Claims agreed, deeming his work original and thus defeating the postal service’s fair use argument.

The court – which hears monetary claims against the government – then had to decide what Davidson was owed. The USPS asserted that there is huge demand to appear on a postage stamp and that it never had to pay more than $5,000 for a license.

The court disagreed. Instead, it focused on the percentage of the stamps that had been sold but never used. Those stamps were pure profit for the postal service, and as such, it should pay a royalty on them… along with the $5,000. Davidson was awarded a total of $3.55 million.

USPS assures that it has put safeguards in place to prevent this type of thing from happening again in the future. But if the price of postage goes up in the near future, perhaps we’ll know why!


Fashion house Versace was recently sued for trademark infringement by a much smaller brand. (Yes, this might sound like the opposite of what you’re used to hearing.)

Streetwear brand No Fixed Abode claims it has been using a lion doorknocker emblem as its logo since the company began in 2013. Principal Emma Mann alleges that she previously alerted Versace to its infringement of her common law mark. After her application to register the mark was granted by the European Union Trademark Office, she brought suit in the British High Court.

No Fixed Abode is seeking injunctive relief banning Versace from using its own lion doorknocker image, along with monetary damages. Yet the ubiquity of this symbol, the newness of the registration, and the young age of the streetwear brand suggest that it may face an uphill battle.

Will Versace fight it out? Settle? File a counterclaim? Time will tell!


The EU is continuing to regulate the role of American tech giants in their society. Fresh on the heels of the General Data Protection Regulation (known as the “GDPR”) coming into effect, a committee within the EU Parliament has just voted to strengthen copyright laws.

The new restrictions were suggested by the European Commission two years ago and propose making online platforms more accountable for their content. (This is a huge contrast with American law. The federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act actually specifies that online publishing platforms are frequently not liable for their content.)

Two aspects of the proposed law are particularly controversial. One provision would require search engines to pay publishers for using their news snippets. The other pertains to sites with a lot of user-generated visual content like YouTube, Instagram, and eBay. Those sites would be required to use a filter to prevent users from uploading copyright-protected materials without having a license.

Copyright holders are in favor of the proposed rules. Of course, they want to be compensated for their content. But they also say the rules will contribute to a better quality internet with more accurate information.

The Civil Liberties Union for Europe and others who are opposed argue that the rules will violate free speech. One prominent politician has vowed to challenge the rules and request a vote in Parliament.


Our firm focuses on intellectual property and entertainment law and would be happy to discuss your matter with you. Contact us at (561) 953-9300 or click here to schedule your free consultation.

Dr. Dre, Dr. Drai, And What It Takes To Trademark Your Name

At the intersection of branding, marketing, and commerce is trademark law.

These are generally corporate concepts – and so, understandably, most people think of trademarks as something that applies to companies.

But what happens when an individual is the company or brand? Can a personal name be trademarked?

Yes, with limitations.

If you want to secure a trademark for your name, you need to be using it in commerce, either directly in connection with providing goods and services, or in the advertisements for them. At the very least, you need to be actively planning to use it and can demonstrate that intent.

In other words, you can’t simply apply for a blanket trademark that prevents others from using your name across the board.

For example, George Foreman has a number of trademarks. One of them is for meat and poultry. If someone comes along and starts selling beef jerky under George Foreman’s name, that might be deemed infringement. But suppose George Foreman sues someone for selling school supplies under his name. Now he has a weaker case, because he doesn’t have a registration that covers those types of products.

Further, consumers wouldn’t necessarily assume that the school supplies were affiliated with George Foreman, the boxer and grillmaster. To the contrary – school supplies might seem like a strange product line for him to get into, given the other types of products he sells.

So to register your name, you need to do it for specific goods or services affiliated with you personally. And there needs to be a connection in the mind of the consumer between you and your product(s).

Basically, for George Foreman to trademark his personal name for barbecue grills, there needs to be demonstrable evidence that when people hear his name, they think of grills.

If you think being a celebrity might help with all of this, you’re right. Fame makes it easier to build the case that people associate you specifically with your product or service. Of course, there is no absolute rule for how well-known you have to be.

So how do these principles play out in real life? It would be reasonable to think these cases generally go the celebrity’s way, to give them maximum control over their own brand. Yet a few recent examples show that’s not how it always goes.

In late 2015, ob/gyn Draion Burch, also known as Dr. Drai, filed his application to trademark that nickname. Dr. Drai has appeared on television and written books. He sought to trademark his name for his books, plus videos, podcasts, speaking services, and more.

Enter Andre Young—better known worldwide as Dr. Dre. When the rap producer/businessman got wind of Drai’s trademark application, he filed a complaint with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) to block the registration.

His rationale was that the names, which sound identical, would lead to consumers being confused about the source of the services. He argued that the types of goods and services Dr. Drai intended to sell were associated with the entertainment industry in which Dre himself is a well-known figure. He also alleged that the doctor was trading on the goodwill of Dre’s name.

Dr. Drai claimed that consumer confusion is unlikely, given that he’s a medical doctor and Dre is a “doctor” in name only. Moreover, the reason he chose the name was that it’s his given name.

Finally, Dr. Drai argued that any affiliation with Dre would actually be detrimental to his own brand. As an ob/gyn who is part of the LGBT community, he asserted that wouldn’t want to be associated with some of Dre’s misogynistic and homophobic lyrics.

The TTAB sided with Dr. Drai and dismissed Dre’s complaint. Dr. Drai’s trademark application will continue making its way through the US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).

A pair of Italian brothers were surprised several years ago to find out that Apple hadn’t trademarked co-founder Steve Jobs’ name. So they did what any enterprising young entrepreneurs would do.

They started a clothing company called “Steve Jobs” and registered their own Steve Jobs trademark.

Needless to say, Apple didn’t appreciate the shout-out to its late leader—especially given that the logo is a “J” with a bite taken out it and a leaf accent. The company sued…

And lost.

Late in 2017, the EU’s Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market found that Steve Jobs, the clothing brand, doesn’t infringe on any of Apple’s marks. After all, the letter J isn’t an apple itself, but a letter.

The company reportedly makes bags, jeans, and t-shirts. But the brothers say they intend to expand into other products—including, possibly, electronics. Such a move into Apple’s terrain would likely prompt a fresh trademark complaint. For the moment, however, Steve Jobs is sticking to clothing.

Kanye West has been known as Yeezy for years. Which is probably why the Chinese firm Fujian Baby Network Technology Co. (“FBNT”) recently decided to try to trademark the term “Yeezy Boost” – the name of a sneaker designed by West.

Apparently West had let some of his trademarks lapse. Noticing an opportunity, FBNT applied last year to register the mark for clothing.

But FBNT had everything going against it. Trademark law isn’t just about first registration. It’s about a reputation you’ve built, and a brand. West has called himself Yeezy since at least 2009, and he designed clothing and shoes under that name for several years before FBNT applied for the mark in the same category. There’s a strong connection in the mind of the public between West and the word “Yeezy.”

FBNT seems to have seen the writing on the wall. Rather than enter into a protracted legal battle that it would be likely to lose, the company abandoned its attempted registration of the mark.

Are you thinking about trying to trademark your personal name, or anything else? Our firm focuses on intellectual property and entertainment law and would be happy to discuss your matter with you. Contact us via our website or call (561) 953-9300 to schedule your free consultation.

Please note: this blog is intended to provide general information which should not be taken as legal advice.

Original article posted on our dedicated blog on June 15, 2018

Defamation and Multiple Infringements: Recent Notable IP Lawsuits

We mentioned last month that the law can sometimes be wildly surprising and unpredictable.

Realistically, that doesn’t happen too often.

A lot of cases are resolved outside of court, decided on procedural grounds, or otherwise disposed of. So case law often changes slowly, particularly when it comes to certain types of law that are well settled.

But the fact that many disputes don’t end in trial doesn’t mean there are fewer cases. There will always be parties with something to disagree about.

Here are a few cases that have caught our eye over the past few months:

  • Apple lost a long-running patent infringement lawsuit… for now.

It’s nothing new for Apple to be involved in patent litigation. When you’re a tech company that big, it’s just part of a doing business.

But what some may find surprising is for Apple to be on the losing end of this particular suit. After eight long years of litigation, Apple was found guilty of infringement. At the heart of the dispute are four patents for related to FaceTime and iMessage owned by plaintiff VirnetX.

If you haven’t heard of VirnetX, you’re in good company. It’s not a well-known name like, say, Samsung.

VirnetX is a holding company that purchases patents and then uses litigation to assert or defend their rights related to those patents. For these types of companies, litigation is often their only source of income.

These businesses tend to have a bad public image. But they’re perfectly legal, and they’re often highly profitable. Case in point: Apple has been ordered to pay VirnetX more than half a billion dollars. $502.6 million, to be exact. And this isn’t the first verdict VirnetX has won against Apple.

Of course, the money is just a drop in the bucket for Apple, which made $20 billion in profit the first quarter of this year alone.

Though the money might be a moot point altogether. Because there’s a chance the verdict could be overturned…

There are a couple of relevant cases currently pending before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court that hears all the patent appeals. In those cases, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has said VirnetX’s patents are invalid.

It’s hard to imagine Apple won’t appeal on that basis. And if they win an appeal, Apple won’t need to pay anything.

And so the saga will likely continue…

  • Nikola sued Tesla, and their namesake would probably feel conflicted.

In a lawsuit that sounds either fated to happen or like a bad punchline, Nikola sued Tesla for patent infringement. The two companies have more in common name than just their name inspiration. Nikola builds zero-emissions trucks and Tesla creates electric vehicles.

Nikola’s lawsuit says the cabin of the Tesla Semi truck infringes on the design of the Nikola One. The former filed its design patents in December 2015 and produced a prototype a year later. Tesla announced its truck in July 2016 and showed off the purportedly infringing design in April 2017.

Under the first-to-file patent application system, it would seem that Nikola is protected. At the heart of the suit will likely be the issue of whether the patents are invalid for some other reason. If they’re valid, the next question will be whether they were truly infringed.

Nikola is seeking $2 billion in damages. You can see the designs of the truck cabins side by side here.

  • Before going public, Spotify was hit with a massive infringement suit.

In a suit filed the day before the defendant’s stock went public, Wixen Music Publishing alleged that Spotify has improperly used more than 10,000 of Wixen’s songs. The publisher is seeking $150,000 per infringement, for a whopping $1.5 billion total.

This isn’t the first time Spotify has faced a suit of this nature. The company recently settled another suit for $43 million.

But $1.5 billion? Wixen says its catalog is worth 1% to 5% of Spotify’s service offerings, so it should get a reasonable share of the revenue. The catalog includes hip hop artists like Missy Elliott, alternative rock acts like the Black Keys and Rage Against the Machine, and classic rock artists like the Beach Boys and Janis Joplin.

Spotify claims copyright law doesn’t apply to music that is streamed. However, unlike other services like Pandora, Spotify’s music isn’t simply streamed. Because listeners can select the tracks they want to listen to, the stream is interactive. That arguably requires different licenses, which Spotify has refused to pay for.

The suit pits a notoriously low-paying music subscription service against a publisher known for being a tough negotiator. It will be interesting to see what terms the parties end up coming to.

  • Olivia de Havilland appealed her loss in her defamation suit.

101-year old actress Olivia de Havilland has appealed her loss of her suit against FX Networks to the Supreme Court of California. A mainstay during the golden age of Hollywood, de Havilland had sued over the miniseries “Feud,” a fictionalized story about the rivalry between Joan Crawford and Bette Davis.

In her complaint, de Havilland claimed she was inaccurately portrayed in the miniseries. The state appellate court, however, determined that the show’s creators were allowed the artistic license to embellish whatever was true historically.

On her behalf, de Havilland’s lawyer argues that the Court of Appeal opinion “rewards the unscrupulous and will put those who investigate and seek to tell the public the truth at an economic disadvantage.” Moreover, the opinion infringes not just on the right of de Havilland to a trial by journey, but also on the right of others in similar situations who may not be celebrities.

No word yet on whether California’s Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal.

Unsure about your legal rights? We can help.

Do you have questions about copyright, trademark, or patent law? Our firm, located in Boca Raton, FL, regularly handles both transactions and disputes around intellectual property and other civil matters. To learn how to protect your IP, use our website form or call (561) 953-5300 for your free consultation.

Please note: this blog is intended to provide general information which should not be taken as legal advice.

Original article posted on our dedicated blog on May 14, 2018

Copyright Law’s “Blurred Lines” Will Remain That Way

Every once in a while, the law can be wildly unpredictable and interesting.

Not necessarily in a good way… but interesting nonetheless.

As is the case with the verdict in Robin Thicke and Pharrell Blurred Lines appeal. Though the verdict is bad news for a lot of music creators, it’s an interesting change in the application of the law.

But that’s not all that’s going on in the world of intellectual property news. There’s an interesting new case we’re keeping an eye on as well.

Details on everything below.

“Blurred Lines” Verdict Upheld, Leaving Questions in Its Wake

It was the verdict one expert and his colleagues were so sure would be overturned, they were counting the days waiting for it to happen…

But then, it didn’t.

The music industry was shocked three years ago when Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were found to have infringed Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” in their 2013 hit “Blurred Lines.”

And it is now shocked again to find the verdict upheld in a 2-1 opinion issued by the Ninth Circuit appellate court. (You can download a copy of the 89-page verdict here.)

As we explained at the time of the lower court’s ruling, this case was a watershed moment because it wasn’t about infringement of a lyric or a melody. Rather, it was about the tone and feel of the song – the overall sound, with its recognizable cowbell and party vibe. These elements aren’t typically copyrightable.

As we also talked about when the verdict came down, Gaye’s hit was released in the mid-1970s, right around the time there was a major change in copyright law. Thicke and Williams appealed on the basis of that change in the law. They argued that the jury considered evidence it shouldn’t have been presented with – and as result, that evidence impacted the outcome of the case.

The appellate court took care to note that its decision was purely procedural, disappointing industry watchers who wanted the case’s substantive issues addressed. As Judge Smith wrote for the majority, “[o]ur decision does not grant license to copyright a musical style or “groove”… Rather, our decision hinges on settled procedural principles and the limited nature of our appellate review.”

For that reason, some say the outcome of this case doesn’t really change copyright law and won’t have much impact on future cases. The Gaye family’s lawyer agrees, pointing to a 1994 suit the Isley Brothers brought and won against Michael Bolton. That case was also supposed to be a landmark case but didn’t end up triggering the expected wave of lawsuits.

Yet many lawyers and forensic musicologists (a type of expert relied on in the Blurred Lines case) say they’ve already seen more cases, and faster settlements, since the “Blurred Lines” verdict was issued in 2015.

Industry watchers are hoping Thicke and Williams seek an en banc decision (where the entire Ninth Circuit court considers the case, rather than just a three-person panel) or appeal to the Supreme Court so this case can be decided on the merits. But in either event, there’s no guarantee the court will grant the request.

So for now, the 2-1 appellate decision stands. Even though one judge strongly dissented, pointing out that “[W]hat the majority overlooks is that the two works in the same genre must share at least some protectable expression in order to run afoul of copyright law.”

Now, Here’s Something Ironic

Do you remember Robin Thicke’s performance with Miley Cyrus at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards?

When “Blurred Lines” was #1 on the music charts, the #2 track was Cyrus’s “We Can’t Stop.” At the MTV awards, the two performed a rather raunchy mashup of these songs.

As we all know, Thicke was sued for his song – and as it turns out, now Cyrus is being sued for hers.

Plaintiff Michael May asserts that Cyrus’s lyric “we run things / things don’t run we” is a misappropriation of his 1988 lyric “we run things / things no run we.”

Unlike the “Blurred Lines” lawsuit, the musical tracks at issue don’t sound alike. (You can judge for yourself here.) The point of contention is just the lyric. May estimates that his contribution to the success of Cyrus’s song is worth $300 million. He’s seeking an injunction to future sales and performances of “We Can’t Stop.”

And Here’s a Case that Seems Ironic But Isn’t

On a different note, here’s a case that at first blush seems ironic…

But really isn’t at all.

Tinder (or more specifically, its parent company Match) is suing Bumble, and Bumble is countersuing.

If you don’t know what those two companies are, let’s just say that one online dating company is suing the other.

Now, Tinder and Bumble both use “swipe left” and “swipe right” technology to connect (or reject) other members. The big difference is that on Bumble (the newer company), for heterosexual matches, the interface requires any conversations to be initiated by the woman.

It seems cut and dried that if Tinder came along first, Bumble is infringing.

But it’s not that simple. Here’s the backstory with these two companies.

Bumble founder Whitney Wolfe Herd was a co-founder of Tinder. She founded Bumble in 2014, the same year she left Tinder and sued that company for sexual harassment. Though Match denied her allegations, it paid Herd to settle the suit.

In 2017, Match offered to buy Bumble, but Bumble turned down the offer, citing the $450 million price as too low. So Match requested confidential marketing information and financial information, purportedly to raise its bid. After raising its offer, Tinder dropped its bid lower again, and negotiations fell apart.

Tinder announced that it would be adding the same woman-controlled feature to its app, and at the same time initiated suit against Bumble. The complaint cites infringement of two patents; infringement of Tinder’s “swipe” trademark, the application for which is currently on hold with the United States Patent and Trademark Office; and theft of trade secrets by two former Tinder employees who now work for Bumble.

But Bumble isn’t just playing defense. The company first published an open letter positioning it as the underdog in a David-and-Goliath style battle. Then it countersued for fraud and theft of trade secrets.

Bumble alleges Tinder is trying to devalue Bumble in the eyes of other potential financial suiters. Moreover, says Bumble, Tinder was already planning to sue Bumble when it sought confidential company information under the guise of raising its offer price.

One thing is almost certain: with this case just heating up, we’re sure to hear more surprising allegations between the parties if they don’t settle quickly.

Never Mind the Drama – We Can Help

You’ve already seen that intellectual property law can be dramatic.

It can also be confusing.

If you have a question about entertainment law or intellectual property law, then contact us for a consultation. It’s free, and there’s no obligation.

Our firm regularly handles both transactions and disputes around copyrights, trademarks, and patents. To learn how to protect your IP, call (561) 953-5300 to schedule your complimentary appointment.

Please note: this blog is intended to provide general information which should not be taken as legal advice.

Original article posted on our dedicated blog on April 15, 2018

Intellectual Property + Politics = Lawsuits

Intellectual property rights used to be an esoteric concept to most people. But as more people become creators, they’ve learned more about this bundle of rights. It’s easier to see how they apply in real life.

But sometimes there are still surprises. Creations become misappropriated in an unexpected way. Good intentions can backfire. And as with many other fields, IP case law ends up being shaped largely by politics and current events.

Like these recent cases:

Cartoon Frog Becomes a Hate Symbol

Have you ever heard of Pepe the Frog? (If he doesn’t sound familiar, do a quick image search online. You’ll probably recognize him.)

Pepe started out in a comic strip, the same way many other hand-drawn characters do. But over time, he became more popular… more widely disseminated… and somehow, a symbol for the alt right. (Though he’s only been around since 2005, Pepe has had an interesting history and evolution.)

Within the past few years, more and more memes featuring Pepe as a white nationalist have been created and shared. In fall 2016, a number of news outlets reported on Pepe’s association with the alt right movement. Of course, this brought the character’s negative connotations further into the spotlight.

Matt Furie, Pepe’s creator, issued a statement through his publisher, Fantagraphics, speaking out against the use of the Pepe character in this manner. “[T]he one, true Pepe the frog, as created by the human being and artist Matt Furie, is a peaceful cartoon amphibian who represents love, acceptance, and fun,” the publisher said.

Furie also teamed up with the Anti-Defamation League to do a #SavePepe hashtag campaign encouraging people to create and share positive images of Pepe on social media.

But associations can be stubborn, and Pepe continued to be an alt right symbol. So when Furie found out about a cartoonist selling oil paintings showing Pepe in violent and politically charged situations, he sued. (The case recently settled.)

And he recently sued again. This time, he’s targeting a much larger defendant: the alt right website The suit stems from a promotional poster for the website that’s available for purchase. The poster features the likenesses of Infowars founder Alex Jones, Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos… and Pepe (among others).

The suit alleges one count of copyright infringement. Furie is seeking financial damages (he licenses the Pepe character to other companies) along with an injunction.

Infowars’ Jones hasn’t responded to the complaint as of the time of this writing. But he has told the press that the poster is an expression of political speech protected by the First Amendment.

Microsoft vs. the Environment?

Eric Lundgren is an entrepreneur, inventor, environmentalist, philanthropist… and possibly, a criminal.

Lundgren began fixing and reusing computer parts during his teen years in Washington. By the time he was 19, he’d moved to Los Angeles and started an electronics recycling company.

Within the next 14 years, he went on to launch a facility that turns discarded electronics into functioning technology. And not just refurbished factory versions: Lundgren built a car from recycled electronics parts that outperformed Tesla in a road test.

His company processes 41 million pounds of e-waste annually. His donation of 14,000 cellphones to “Cellphones for Soldiers” and his efforts to help clean up e-waste in Ghana and China show that he cares about people as well as the planet.

But now Lundgren’s desire to help has landed him in trouble.

His legal issues relate to restore discs, which help computer buyers reinstall their operating system if their computer crashes or needs to be reset. Restore discs can only be used on computers that already have licensed Windows software. They’re usually provided at the time a new computer is purchased or can be downloaded from the computer manufacturer’s website.

Lundgren recently manufactured 28,000 of these discs – without Microsoft’s approval.

Not for profit, he said, but because of Microsoft’s planned obsolescence for certain computers. Over time, technology companies encourage buyers to spend money on new products by phasing out support for the older ones. The result is extra e-waste – another computer disposed of that pollutes both air and water when it’s burned.

Lundgren had hoped that by duplicating the restore discs, he’d save computer owners from unnecessarily trashing their old computers that could still be functional. Instead, he found himself on the receiving end of a software piracy lawsuit.

The court overseeing the case determined that the discs were worth $700,000 – an amount that came with a $50,000 fine and a 15-month prison term for Lundgren. However, in an unusual move, the appellate court granted his request to remain free while he appeals.

Do you have questions about intellectual property?

Do you have questions about your own intellectual property rights as related to someone else’s? Our firm regularly handles both transactions and disputes around copyrights, trademarks, and patents. To learn how to protect your IP, contact us or call (561) 953-5300 for your free consultation.

Please note: this blog is intended to provide general information which should not be taken as legal advice.

Original article posted on our dedicated blog on March 16, 2018

Looking to Cancel Someone’s Copyright? Here’s What You’ll Need to Prove

How would you or the music fan in your life complete this sentence?

“Everyday I’m _________”

Rapper Rick Ross says the phrase is “Everyday I’m hustlin’,” from his classic tune “Hustlin.'”

Pop band LMFAO says it’s “Everyday I’m shufflin,'” as used in their song “Party Anthem.”

Rick Ross alleged in a lawsuit that LMFAO is infringing.

Yet Ross’s three copyright registrations at issue are all defective. As the case made its way through district court, the court sua sponte (on its own, without being asked by either of the parties) invalidated the registrations. Without owning a valid copyright, Ross had no standing to sue, and the court dismissed his case.

Trademarks and patents are occasionally invalidated after they’re issued. There are a number of reasons this can happen, from administrative to litigation-related.

But copyrights are invalidated less frequently. And as the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit made clear in ruling on Ross’s appeal, someone seeking cancellation of a copyright has a high threshold to meet.

Scienter, or ill intent, relative to the registration is required.

It begins with one of the copyright statutes. The law specifies that, while a copyright automatically exists in applicable works, a plaintiff must have registered their copyright in order to sue for infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 411.

The Copyright Act notes that a registration certificate – even one with inaccurate information – serves as satisfaction of this requirement, unless:

  • The inaccurate information was knowingly included on the application; and
  • had the Copyright Office known of the inaccuracy, it would have refused to register the copyright.

Id. at (b).

Which leads to a few questions. For all registrations where the applicant should have known, or later became aware of, inaccurate or incomplete information be cancelled? Does it matter if the inaccuracy is of little consequence? Or should copyright applications be treated more stringently for someone who has negative intentions for the registration – if, for example, they’re looking to hide something?

As far back as 1982, the Eleventh Circuit (which has jurisdiction over federal cases in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) has maintained that cancellation of a copyright requires scienter.

That year, the court noted that a common theme in certain copyright lawsuits was the “intentional or purposeful concealment of relevant information.” Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d 821, 828 (1982). Where scienter is lacking, both district courts and appellate courts have generally upheld copyrights. Id., citing cases from various courts around the country.

The Toy Loft court found no scienter for the errors in the plaintiff’s copyright application, and the defendant’s claim that plaintiff’s copyright was unenforceable failed.

Yet the language of the relevant provision of the Copyright Act was amended in 2008. Would the amendment change the analysis if the same case were heard today?

In 2009, the Eleventh Circuit said no, reiterating its position in St. Luke’s Cataract & Laser Inst., P.A. v. Sanderson, 573 F.3d 1186.

In Sanderson, the court considered both the language of the statute (17 U.S.C. § 411 at (b)(1)) and the Toy Loft court’s finding that “[O]missions or misrepresentations in a copyright application can render the registration invalid” in the event of “intentional or purposeful concealment of relevant information.” Sanderson, 573 F.3d at 1201, citing Toy Loft, 684 F.2d at 828.

Based on the facts of the case, the Sanderson court found scienter, ending the plaintiff’s attempt to get a new trial.

But does this mean that scienter must be present?

As Rick Ross, LMFAO, and the rest of the Eleventh Circuit now know – yes.

Ross and his fellow plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their copyright lawsuit. Roberts v. Gordy, 877 F.3d 1024 (2017). They argued that the lower court improperly invalidated their copyright registrations without evidence of scienter. LMFAO and their codefendants countered that scienter wasn’t required.

However, the defendants had never contested the validity of the plaintiffs’ copyrights in the course of the suit. And in failing to raise that point as a defense, they ultimately waived it. District courts aren’t supposed to raise defenses sua sponte (on their own accord) as they did here.

Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit found the lower court’s analysis incorrect. The appellate court made a point to state very directly that the Sanderson analysis reaffirmed Toy Loft. The amendment to the Copyright Act in between the two cases did not impact the court’s position.

The court explicitly found that “in order to invalidate a registration, (1) the application must contain inaccuracies, (2) the inaccuracies must be material, and (3) the applicant must have the required scienter of intentional or purposeful concealment.” Gordy, 877 F.3d at 1030 (emphasis added).

The Eleventh Circuit is the first appellate court to make this determination. The ruling will stand as precedent in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, and it will be persuasive for courts in the rest of the country. So at least for now, this is the law of the land.

That’s good news for copyright holders whose registrations may be unintentionally defective…

Yet if you’re ever involved in a copyright dispute, it’s preferable not to have to spend the time and money litigating this point as Rick Ross did.

To minimize the chances of a dispute of this nature, you’ll want to ensure that all your copyright registrations are accurate. The Lomnitzer Law Firm can help. If you have questions about registering a copyright, trademark, or patent, call (561) 953-5300 or contact us for your free consultation.

Please note: this blog is intended to provide general information which should not be taken as legal advice.

Original article posted on our dedicated blog on February 13, 2018


New Year, Same Lawsuits

As tempting as it is to say “new year, new lawsuits,” that’s only partially true.

Because while a slew of new suits will surely be filed in 2018, there are still plenty of pending cases that are worth watching even though they have yet to be decided.

One big theme in a number of pending cases is fashion. From shoes to jewels, there’s a suit, countersuit, or appeal coming up that could have big implications for other players in the fashion industry. And it’s no wonder: something so visually driven invites all kinds of trademark and design issues.

Here are a few cases we’re keeping an eye on this year.

  • Adidas sues Skechers… again.

Skechers is no stranger to lawsuits. In its 25 years of existence, the company has been taken to court more than once by both Nike and Adidas for knocking off their designs.

Chalk it up to Skechers’ “fast fashion” approach to doing business. Rather than spending a lot of money researching and developing innovations for their sneakers, Skechers takes a different tack. The company waits for the bigger shoemakers to test new shoe designs out first. Skechers then manufactures its own version of the shoes that are successful in the marketplace.

In spite of the numerous suits the company has had to defend against, the business model seems to be working for Skechers. The company surpassed Adidas to become the number-two selling athletic shoe company in the US in 2015.

Having entered into several settlement agreements since 1995, it seems that another could be on the horizon for these two parties. At the center of the dispute is Adidas’ “Springblade” technology which is intended to help propel runners forward.

The distinctive design was introduced in 2013. Skechers began offering its own modified version before Adidas received patents for the Springblade concept in 2016. Because of the timing, the court last summer found no willful infringement on behalf of Skechers and turned down Adidas’ request for a preliminary injunction.

The case was put on hold late last summer so the U.S. Patent and Trial Appeal Board could decide other issues related to the case. The trial is expected to move forward in April 2018 – unless, of course, the parties settle (again).

  • Converse is trying to regain its rights in its trade dress.

For many shoppers, the Converse brand’s iconic shoe designs with a toe cap, bumper, striped midsole, and diamond-patterned soles have been around for more than their entire lives. The question is, when you see these elements on an athletic shoe, do you automatically think of Converse?

The company says yes, you probably do. With that in mind, Converse filed an infringement suit a few years ago against 31 entities including the likes of Walmart, New Balance, and other household names.

During the proceedings, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) found that, aside from the patterned soles, the other elements at the heart of the suit weren’t protectable as trade dress. (Trade dress is a product’s overall appearance. Just as someone can have legal rights in a trademark, they can also have rights in trade dress.) This was a major victory for the defendants.

But Converse isn’t going away quietly. The Nike subsidiary is battling the ITC to have its design features recognized as protectable trade dress. Arguments are scheduled to be heard by the Federal Circuit appellate court in February.

Christian Louboutin (whose red-soled shoes enjoy legal protection) and Tiffany & Co. (whose “Tiffany blue” boxes are also protected) have filed amicus briefs for the court to consider. These are briefs submitted by nonparties who have an interest in the subject matter and want to provide additional, relevant information.

These companies argue that the ITC’s decision, if allowed to stand, sets a dangerous precedent that could upend trademark and trade dress law as we know it.

  • Speaking of Tiffany & Co., Costco is appealing the court’s verdict in favor of the jeweler.

Sound familiar? These parties have been embroiled in litigation for five years (though you wouldn’t be alone if you think it feels much longer).

Tiffany sued over Costco’s sale of what the retailer described as “Tiffany” diamond rings. Costco argued that the “Tiffany setting” is a generic description for a type of ring setting. While the argument has some validity, Costco’s display cases said “Tiffany” as a standalone term, which could be misleading as to the origin of the rings.

Tiffany prevailed, and the court last fall ordered Costco to pay $19.4 million. But the case isn’t closed because Costco appealed. The parties are due to meet in court again later this year. If Costco is successful in its appeal, the decision could loosen the rules regarding how you can describe your product.

But more than just the Tiffany suit, all three cases have the potential to have a big impact. We’re looking forward to seeing how they play out, and we’ll be sure to keep you posted about their outcomes could affect you.

Do you have any questions about a trademark, patent, or copyright matter? Our firm, located in Boca Raton, Florida, focuses on intellectual property and entertainment law and would be happy to discuss it with you. Contact us at (561) 953-9300 or contact us via website inquiry form to schedule your free consultation.

Please note: this blog is intended to provide general information which should not be taken as legal advice.

Original article posted on our dedicated blog on January 16, 2018