Category: Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property

Principles of Equity: SCOTUS Eliminates “Willfulness” Prerequisite for Award of Trademark Profits

Written by Eleanor M. Lackman

On April 23, 2020, the Supreme Court weighed in on a question that had split the circuits:  to receive an award of profits for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, does a plaintiff first have to show that the defendant infringed with willful intent?  All the Justices agreed that the answer is “no.”  Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., No. 18-1233.  Instead, a court must consider “principles of equity” in deciding whether to award the equitable remedy of the defendant’s profits.  Recognizing that eliminating a threshold requirement of willfulness may create uncertainty in the law, the Court found that the statute’s language clearly mandated that lack of willfulness is not, in itself, a barrier to a profits award.  Nonetheless, willfulness remains a factor for strong consideration in deciding whether an award is equitable.

The case arose from a dispute between a supplier of fasteners for handbags and other accessories that respondent Fossil made.  Over time, Fossil’s factories in China had started to source counterfeit fasteners. Romag claimed that Fossil was doing little to guard against the practice, and Romag sued.  After trial, the jury found that Fossil had acted “in callous disregard” of Romag’s rights, but the jury rejected the claim that Fossil acted willfully.  The district court refused Romag’s request that Fossil hand over all the profits from the sales of its bags and other products containing the counterfeit fasteners, pointing out that controlling Second Circuit precedent required a plaintiff seeking profits to prove that the defendant’s violation was willful.  Other circuits took a different position from the Second Circuit, so the Court granted certiorari.

Continue reading “Principles of Equity: SCOTUS Eliminates “Willfulness” Prerequisite for Award of Trademark Profits”

Unknown's avatarmskllpLeave a comment
Intellectual Property

Court Holds Vicarious Copyright Liability Claim Can Move Forward Against Major ISP

Written by Marc E. Mayer, Leo M. Lichtman, and Orly Ravid

Last week, the music industry enjoyed a high profile victory in its efforts to combat music piracy allegedly facilitated by Internet service providers (ISPs), including cable and telecommunications companies that provide Internet access to members of the public.  In Warner Records Inc. et al. v. Charter Comm’ns, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00874, Judge R. Brook Jackson in the U.S. District Court of Colorado adopted a Magistrate’s Judge’s ruling from October 2019 allowing claims of vicarious copyright infringement against Charter Communications, one of this country’s largest ISPs, to proceed beyond the pleading stage.

The Charter Communications lawsuit was initiated last year by Warner Records and a group of several dozen record companies and music publishers, who collectively have produced or control the rights to millions of sound recordings and musical compositions.  In their Complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Charter is contributorily and vicariously liable for the infringement of thousands of copyrighted works that were unlawfully reproduced and distributed by its subscribers via peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing programs such as BitTorrent.  According to the Complaint, Charter has known for years that subscribers were using its network to pirate music—including particular customers that were repeatedly infringing the plaintiffs’ copyrights—by virtue of the thousands of infringement notices that were sent to Charter detailing specific instances of infringement on its network.  The plaintiffs claim that despite those notices, Charter nonetheless failed to take appropriate action to curb the infringement in order to avoid the loss of subscriber revenue. Continue reading “Court Holds Vicarious Copyright Liability Claim Can Move Forward Against Major ISP”

Unknown's avatarmskllpLeave a comment
Intellectual Property

Multicolor Marks On Product Packaging Can Be Inherently Distinctive

Written by Alesha M. Dominique and Sofia Castillo

On April 8th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in In re Forney Industries, Inc., held that multicolor marks can be inherently distinctive when used on product packaging.

In 2014, Forney Industries (“Forney”), a company that manufactures tools and accessories for welding and machining, applied to register a multicolor mark for its packaging and labels consisting of a black banner immediately followed by the color yellow, progressively fading into red. The trademark examining attorney refused to register the multicolor mark after concluding it was not inherently distinctive, and required that Forney Industries submit “sufficient proof of acquired distinctiveness.” The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed the refusal, and Forney appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Continue reading “Multicolor Marks On Product Packaging Can Be Inherently Distinctive”

Unknown's avatarmskllpLeave a comment
Intellectual Property

A De Minimis Defense Grows in Brooklyn: Display of Street Art in Action Movie Not Infringement

Written by Eleanor M. Lackman and Theresa B. Bowman 

On March 30, 2020, in Blaney, et al., v. XYZ Films, et al., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed copyright infringement and false endorsement claims arising out of the depiction of a well-known Brooklyn mural in the dystopian, thriller motion picture Bushwick.  While the defendants undeniably filmed, and thus reproduced, the mural in the motion picture, the court held that such copying was both de minimis and fair use and therefore not copyright infringement.  In dismissing the false endorsement claims, the court determined that the defendants’ use of the mural created little risk of confusion that the murals’ creator and subject, both peace activists, endorsed the defendants’ motion picture.

The decision bolsters the ability of movie and TV production companies to depict, accurately and briefly, iconic or well-known community sites as part of background “establishing shots.”  Meanwhile, the outcome might inject some uncertainty into whether artists can pursue licensing revenue for works depicted in those films and TV shows.

Continue reading “A De Minimis Defense Grows in Brooklyn: Display of Street Art in Action Movie Not Infringement”

Unknown's avatarmskllpLeave a comment
Intellectual Property

NY Court Allows Use of Third-Party Photo Embedding, Thanks to Instagram’s Terms of Service

Written by Robert H. Rotstein and Timothy M. Carter

In the past few years, the advent of social media has increasingly tested the bounds of copyright law.  The issue of whether “in-line linking” or “embedding” constitutes actionable copyright infringement is no exception.

Early last week, in Stephanie Sinclair v. Ziff Davis, LLC, and Mashable, Inc., 1:18-cv-00790 (SDNY, April 13, 2020), Judge Kimba Wood held that Defendant Mashable did not engage in copyright infringement by embedding of Plaintiff photographer Stephanie Sinclair’s photograph “Child, Bride, Mother/Child Marriage in Guatemala” (the “Photograph”). The Court determined that Mashable used the Photograph, which was posted to Sinclair’s publicly viewable Instagram account, pursuant to a valid sublicense granted to Instagram by Sinclair.  Accordingly, Judge Wood granted Mashable’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that Sinclair failed to state a claim for copyright infringement. Continue reading “NY Court Allows Use of Third-Party Photo Embedding, Thanks to Instagram’s Terms of Service”

Unknown's avatarmskllpLeave a comment
COVID-19, Intellectual Property

COVID-19 Relief for Music Industry Workers

Written by Eleanor M. Lackman and Craig C. Bradley

Music industry associations and trade groups, working alongside organizations spanning the creative industries, scored a major victory in securing financial help under the CARES Act (the “Act”) for musicians, music producers, and other music industry workers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This relief falls into two categories: (1) unemployment compensation expanded from traditional employees to include benefits previously unavailable to independent contractors, “gig” workers, and the self-employed, and (2) newly-available loans through the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), including loan advances of up to $10,000, which are now also available to sole proprietors, independent contractors, and the self-employed. Continue reading “COVID-19 Relief for Music Industry Workers”

Unknown's avatarmskllpLeave a comment
COVID-19, Intellectual Property

Copyright Office Accepting Electronic Applications

Copyright Offices Announces Temporary Changes to Deposit Copy Requirements Written by Alesha M. Dominique and Marissa B. Lewis The United States Copyright Office has announced that it will temporarily accept electronic deposit copies to facilitate remote examination of electronic applications which ordinarily must be accompanied by physical deposits during the COVID-19 pandemic.  This measure, effective as of April 2, 2020, is optional and does not … Continue reading Copyright Office Accepting Electronic Applications

Unknown's avatarmskllpLeave a comment
Intellectual Property

Freedom of Squeak: The Ninth Circuit Finds First Amendment Protection For Parody Dog Toy

Written by Marc E. Mayer and Theresa B. Bowman

In VIP Products v. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc., No. 18-16012 (9th Cir. March 31, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held this week that a rubber dog toy designed to resemble a bottle of Jack Daniel’s Black Label Tennessee Whiskey — the “Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker” — is an “expressive work” and therefore entitled to interpose a First Amendment defense against the whiskey company’s trademark infringement claims.

The lawsuit began in 2014 when Jack Daniel’s demanded that VIP Products stop selling the Bad Spaniels on trademark infringement grounds.  The manufacturer filed suit asking an Arizona District Court to weigh in and determine whether the whiskey bottle was entitled to trademark protection at all.  Jack Daniel’s responded with trademark infringement and trademark dilution claims, arguing that the dog toy diluted the commercial power, meaning and value of its brand by tarnishing what the image of the iconic whiskey bottle represents.  The District Judge agreed with Jack Daniel’s that there was a high likelihood of consumer confusion between the products and ordered VIP Products to stop making and selling the Bad Spaniels toy. Continue reading “Freedom of Squeak: The Ninth Circuit Finds First Amendment Protection For Parody Dog Toy”

Unknown's avatarmskllpLeave a comment
Intellectual Property

MSK Scores a Win for Activision in “Call of Duty” Trademark Litigation

Written by Lillian Lee and Timothy M. Carter

On March 31, 2020, District Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York granted MSK’s motion for summary judgment filed by Video Game Practice Co-Chairs Karin Pagnanelli and Marc E. Mayer on behalf of Activision Blizzard, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc., and Major League Gaming Corp. (“Defendants”), dismissing all of Plaintiff AM General’s claims for trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, false advertising, and dilution under the Lanham Act and New York law.  AM General, the manufacturer of the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (colloquially known as the Humvee), filed its suit in November 2017, alleging that some of Activision’s popular Call of Duty games and associated strategy guides and toys depicted the Humvee without AM General’s authorization. Continue reading “MSK Scores a Win for Activision in “Call of Duty” Trademark Litigation”

Unknown's avatarmskllpLeave a comment
COVID-19, Intellectual Property

USPTO Extensions

The USPTO Extends Certain Trademark Deadlines Amid COVID-19 Disruptions

Written by Alesha M. Dominique and Marissa B. Lewis

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) announced earlier this week a thirty-day extension of certain trademark deadlines due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.  The extension applies broadly to trademark deadlines that fall between March 27, 2020 and April 30, 2020, including, in particular:

  • Responses to office actions, including notices of appeal from a final refusal;
  • Statements of use or requests to extend the time to file a statement of use;
  • Notices of opposition or requests to extend the time to file a notice of opposition;
  • Priority filings;
  • Transformations of international registration into a national trademark application;
  • Affidavits of use or excusable nonuse; and
  • Renewal applications.

Continue reading “USPTO Extensions”

Unknown's avatarmskllpLeave a comment