tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43171361247044649592024-03-12T16:01:38.664-07:00MerelyIPAn IP blog not likely to cause confusion in a descriptive worldUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317136124704464959.post-50091126395255878642013-10-18T13:45:00.001-07:002013-10-18T13:46:32.946-07:00Surnames, Trademarks, and Rock-and-Roll<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.glidemagazine.com/hiddentrack/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Van-Halen-wallpaper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://www.glidemagazine.com/hiddentrack/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Van-Halen-wallpaper.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>Using your surname as a trademark may not always be the best
strategy. This is especially the case when you are the ex-wife of rock star
legend, Alex Van Halen. On October 10, 2013, ELVH, Inc., the intellectual
property holding company for the rock band, Van Halen, has sued Kelly Van Halen
for trademark infringement because she is using the mark “KellyVanHalen” in
connection with items such as <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">chairs,
children's blankets, bathing suits as well as building construction and
interior design services. The <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Documents/ESQ/VanHalen.pdf">lawsuit</a>
alleges that the mark, “KellyVanHalen” is “confusingly similar to Plaintiff's
VAN HALEN Marks in sound, appearance and commercial impression”.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
question raised is whether a person has the right to use his or her surname in
the conduct of business. The case law is clear that a person cannot use their
surname if is likely to cause confusion with a prior used mark. In Miller
Brewing Company v. Premier Beverages, Inc. 1981 TTAB LEXIS 51, 10-12 (Trademark
Trial & App. Bd. Mar. 3, 1981)</span>, the Board provides the following
summary regarding this issue:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A
person obviously has a right to use one's own name in his or her daily life's
experiences and encounters. Nonetheless, this right is not absolute. That is,
although one may legally use his own name, the use thereof in connection with a
business may be circumscribed if it encroaches upon the good-will acquired by
another through prior use of the same or a similar mark and is likely to
confuse or mislead the public as to the ownership of the business or of goods
emanating therefrom. It has thus been held that:</span><br />
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
</span><br />
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
". . . . where a person chooses to use his own name as a trademark, the
name immediately becomes a separate and distinct element, devoid of any
connection with its owner's personality, and registration thereof is therefore
subject to the same rules and principles of law which apply to all nonsurname
types of marks". [In re National Cycle Service Inc., 194 USPQ 97 (TTAB,
1976)].</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
The policy reasons for this position can be found in Ford Motor Company v.
Ford, 174 USPQ 456 (CCPA, 1976), wherein the court stated that:<br />
</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
". . . . the interest in allowing an entrepreneur to use his own surname
as a trademark on his goods must give way to the more compelling public and
private interests involved in avoiding a likelihood of confusion or mistake as
to source where use of the surname leads to such confusion or mistake".</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Though the lawsuit between Van Halen and Kelly Van
Halen may bring forth a lot of media attention, this case is pretty
cut-and-dry; in regards to the trademark infringement cause of action, the case
will be determined as to whether there it is a likelihood of confusion. In
other words, in the mind of a consumer, is it likely that the source of
products containing the <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“KellyVanHalen” mark
would be confused with those originating from the manufacturer of products
under the Val Halen mark. <br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
</span>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317136124704464959.post-14134084677901272572013-09-05T13:21:00.002-07:002013-09-05T13:22:43.691-07:00Everything is Bigger in Texas<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhc9hyphenhypheniHwYLU-dyhc6ipHV1EBjNMEQKxfCN7nV2iW8SWRdfm8bTvetkCH3FadSh2wXQztbTRKqoahQxNYuQm5Pm32ouTLxa4uISpfcvESnh3kHUD9i717_a477O0ErqRzSVpoaWj0hDDPEf/s1600/Umami+trademark+infringement+austin+texas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhc9hyphenhypheniHwYLU-dyhc6ipHV1EBjNMEQKxfCN7nV2iW8SWRdfm8bTvetkCH3FadSh2wXQztbTRKqoahQxNYuQm5Pm32ouTLxa4uISpfcvESnh3kHUD9i717_a477O0ErqRzSVpoaWj0hDDPEf/s320/Umami+trademark+infringement+austin+texas.jpg" width="320" /></a>A trademark battle royale has hit Austin, Texas and it
doesn’t look like this legal fight will end anytime soon. <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Umami Burger, a West Coast
hamburger chain with 15 locations nationwide with plans to open more </span><a href="http://dcist.com/2013/02/umami_burger_expanding_to_dc_area.php"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">13 more restaurants this year</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> have filed a lawsuit<b><span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> for trademark
infringement</span></b> against <b><span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Umami Mia Pizzeria, a newly opened Italian
restaurant and pizzeria in Austin, Texas. The burger joint is alleging that the
mark, Umami Mia Pizzeria, used by the Austin, TX restaurant is likely to cause
confusion with their “Umami Burger” mark, which is registered with the U.S.
Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). Additionally, Umami Burger requested the
court to issue a </span></b>preliminary injunction to prevent the Austin,
TX restaurant from using the word “umami” and change their name immediately.</span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">On
August 13, 2013, Judge Sam Sparks denied the injunction and allowed Umami Mia
Pizzeria to continue using its mark while the case is being adjudicated. In
support of his ruling, Judge sparks stated that not only is “umami” a common
word that cannot be monopolized, the restaurants are located in different
states and serve different types of cuisine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This
is not the first time Umami Burger has ran into an issue regarding the
descriptiveness and commonality of its mark. During the federal trademark
registration process, the owner of Umami Burger was issued an office action
because the examiner believed the mark was merely descriptive of <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="fpa_Q30_1_12032011_31515PM">the features, ingredients and purpose of
applicant’s services</a>. The examiner </span><a href="http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn85389895&docId=OOA20111203172314#docIndex=11&page=1"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">stated</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">:</span>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The word UMAMI is defined as: “a taste that is
characteristic of monosodium glutamate and is associated with meats and other
high-protein foods. It is sometimes considered to be a fifth basic taste along
with sweet, sour, salty, and bitter.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The word BURGER is defined as: “a sandwich consisting of a bun, a cooked
beef patty, and often other ingredients such as cheese, onion slices, lettuce,
or condiments.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See attached dictionary
definitions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Applicant’s restaurant is a
BURGER restaurant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The primary food item
found on the menu (see specimen of use) is BURGERS.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The word UMAMI describes a flavor of
food.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this case, it specifically
describes a flavor found in applicant’s BURGERS. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As such, the proposed mark merely describes
the identified goods and, thus, registration on the Principal Register is
refused.</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
mark did eventually register after Umami Burger’s trademark attorney argued
that the applied-for mark was not descriptive, but rather suggestive. A
suggestive mark is one that requires imagination, thought, and perception to
reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods or services in connection with
which it is used. Suggestive marks are allowed to be registered with the USPTO.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Even
though the mark is federally registered, it is still a weak mark and may have
some trouble holding up in court. Even though preliminary injunction was
denied, this Texas-sized lawsuit is far from over. </span>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317136124704464959.post-66737059533884125922013-08-20T13:32:00.000-07:002013-08-20T13:32:40.336-07:00Robin Thicke Now Has a Big Headache<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/robin-thicke-pharrell-ti.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/robin-thicke-pharrell-ti.jpg" width="320" /></a>Things are getting blurry for the artists of this summer-hit
sensation, “Blurred Lines”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Within the
last few weeks, members of Marvin Gaye’s family who have an interest in his
estate along with Bridgeport Music, Inc. have allegedly notified Robin Thicke, <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Pharrell William</span>, and
Clifford Harris, Jr. that their hit song infringes upon the songs “Got To Give
It Up” by Marvin Gaye and “Sexy Ways” by Funkadelic. Thicke states that he was
notified that if he does not provide monetary compensation for copying these
two songs, that the Gaye family and Bridgeport Music would initiate a lawsuit
for copyright infringement.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In response to this threat of legal action, Thicke’s lawyers
at King, Holmes, Paterno & Beruner, LLP—who are the same ones that
represented <a href="http://www.khpblaw.com/pdf/Metallicav.Napstercomplaint.pdf">Metallica
against Napster</a>—have filed their own preemptive suit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California in an effort to acquire <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">declaratory relief. In the <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Documents/ESQ/Robin_Thicke_Complaint%20for%20Declaratory%20Relief%202013.08.15.pdf">lawsuit</a>
they claim that: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The basis of the Gaye defendants' claims
is that "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up"
"feel" or "sound" the same. Being reminiscent of a
"sound" is not copyright infringement. The intent in producing "Blurred
Lines" was to evoke an era. In reality, the Gaye defendants are claiming
ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work, and Bridgeport is
claiming the same work.<br />
<br />
…<br />
<br />
Plaintiffs did not incorporate or
otherwise use the composition "Got To Give It Up" in "Blurred
Lines." Plaintiffs did not infringe any copyright in "Got To Give It
Up.
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Even the former leader of Funkadelic, George Clinton, has
come out and tweeted that <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">"No
sample of <a href="https://hootsuite.com/dashboard" title="Funkadelic">#</a><a href="https://hootsuite.com/dashboard" title="Funkadelic">Funkadelic</a>'s 'Sexy
Ways' in @<a href="https://hootsuite.com/dashboard" title="robinthicke">robinthicke</a>'s
'Blurred Lines' - yet Armen Boladian thinks so? We support @<a href="https://hootsuite.com/dashboard" title="robinthicke">robinthicke</a> @<a href="https://hootsuite.com/dashboard" title="Pharrell">Pharrell</a>!"</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If no sample of either song were incorporated into “Blurred
Lines,” does the Gaye Family even have a case? Well that is difficult to
predict at this moment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In order for a Court
to find a defendant liable for copyright infringement, the plaintiff must prove
that (1) the defendant copied the plaintiff’s prior work, and (2) the copying
went so far as to constitute improper appropriation. Copying can be proven by
circumstantial evidence if the plaintiff proves that (1) defendant had access
to the work, and (2) the defendant’s song is <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">substantially similar to the prior work. To determine
whether “Blurred Lines” is substantially similar to the prior works, the court
will review the works through the eyes of an ordinary observer. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">With
that said, history has showed us that a case like this will not be resolve
quickly and it will take time parse to through the claims and evidence
presented by both sides. The only thing that is clear is that even though Robin
Thicke has dominated the charts the entire summer, all this copyright talk is
certainly giving him a big headache. </span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317136124704464959.post-9487842015084847882013-06-27T07:48:00.000-07:002013-06-27T07:48:43.912-07:00Bullying the Trademark Bully<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS5oMrxhyphenhyphen-yDYHFnH60WpB0cZmksHf6ALmqcLVjy3mxC1bUsRGmnSSSmcPNM8PIpgmj4TKl7NPBpqqzzYF5qzK9q_RFBbeHuk2hHSV1fm05EZUVRZms6hmPgzwFjfIJyld9sQ1Ljhwr9UU/s300/Everyman_Expresso.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS5oMrxhyphenhyphen-yDYHFnH60WpB0cZmksHf6ALmqcLVjy3mxC1bUsRGmnSSSmcPNM8PIpgmj4TKl7NPBpqqzzYF5qzK9q_RFBbeHuk2hHSV1fm05EZUVRZms6hmPgzwFjfIJyld9sQ1Ljhwr9UU/s300/Everyman_Expresso.jpg" /></a></div>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
</style>Engaging in what is perceived as “trademark bullying” has
caused nationwide attention. The media has reported countless stories about
trademark owners engaging in tactics, such as sending cease-and-desist letters
or engaging in litigation, that have been deemed frivolous and beyond the scope
of their actual trademark rights. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/litigation_study.jsp">defines</a>
trademark bullying as using litigation tactics that involve<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> “an attempt to enforce
trademark rights beyond a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the rights
granted to the trademark owner.”</span> Examples of trademark bullying in
recent headlines include New York State’s <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Department of Economic Development (owner of the “I ♥ NY®”
trademark)</span> sending a cease-and-desist letter to a coffee shop for using
the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/nyregion/new-york-challenges-a-coffee-shop-logo.html?_r=0">“<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I [coffee cup] N Y” logo</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> and Chick-fil-A going after
a Vermont folk artist for selling t-shirts that say <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/eat-more-kale-tshirt-comp_n_3141407.html">“eat
more kale”</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though these tactics are occurring, consumers are now
empowered more than ever before to fight back by utilizing the magic of social
media. Aggressive cease-and-desist letters are being met by resistance on
blogs, Facebook, and Twitter that can lead to a public shaming. Ferrero, the
owner of Nutella, has went after the founder of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/sara-rosso-nutella-cease-and-desist_n_3294733.html"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">World Nutella Day</span></a>,
but had to withdraw its complaint after word spread virally that “<a href="http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/nutella-thanks-its-biggest-fan-founder-world-nutella-day-sending-her-cease-and-desist-149695" title="Nutella Thanks Its Biggest Fan, Founder of World Nutella Day, by Sending Her a Cease and Desist That's nuts!"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Nutella
Thanks Its Biggest Fan, Founder of World Nutella Day, by Sending Her a Cease
and Desist That’s nuts!</span></a>” Magic Hat has met resistance on Facebook
and received negative publicity for going after <a href="http://www.kentucky.com/2013/05/25/2653820/social-media-puts-west-sixth-magic.html"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">West Sixth Brewing Co.</span></a>
because they were using an alleged confusingly similar an orange label that
includes the numeral 6 and a "dingbat" star. <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This phenomenon of social media resistance has caught the eye
of intellectual property experts who at the <i><span style="font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202603353573&Be_Cautious_About_Trademark_Protection_On_Social_Media&slreturn=20130527091148"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Corporate Counsel’s 25th Annual General
Counsel Conference</span></a></span></i>, advised corporations to be cautious
when enforcing their marks by implementing a case-by-case basis approach rather
than a one-size-fits all approach to trademark enforcement.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Trademark
enforcement is a very important part of protecting ones trademark portfolio.
However, in the age of social media where any story can go viral, trademark
owners must be aware and consider the consequences of being labeled a trademark
bully in the court of public opinion. </span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317136124704464959.post-10699206331500344592013-04-15T18:47:00.000-07:002013-05-13T20:03:48.965-07:00Will Patent Reform Lead to a Crackdown of Patent Trolls? Nowadays, it seems that patent infringement battles between
two mega-corporations, such as <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/24/us-apple-samsung-trial-idUSBRE87N13V20120824">Apple
versus Samsung</a><span class="MsoHyperlink">,</span> are always making headline
news. Unfortunately, the media is ignoring a more important issue, one that the
business and legal world has known about for a while—the rise of patent trolls
and their controversial litigation tactics. <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Patent trolls, which are also known
as patent monetization entities (“PMEs”), are companies that primarily generate
revenue through licensing and enforcing patents in an unduly aggressive manner
with no intention of actually producing anything from the patents they possess.
According to a <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2247195">recent study</a>
published by the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, 56
percent of all patent infringement lawsuits in the United States in 2012 were
filed by patent monetization entities (“PMEs”). Even more shocking than the
previous statistic is that these patent trolls cost U.S. innovators and
companies more than <a href="http://www.bu.edu/law/news/BessenMeurer_patenttrolls.shtml">$29 billion
each year</a>. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br />
Reality, illustrated by the statistics
above, has caused great frustration in the business world and many have spoken
out against patent troll tactics. President Obama has even characterized the
trolls’ actions as nothing less than extortion. In recent months the government
has been dedicating time and resources to examining the threat of patent trolls
and their effect on the US economy. The Department of Justice, Federal Trade
Commission and the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office have all taken the <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/pae/">initial steps</a> to address this
issue. Congress is also acting by <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null">considering</a>
the SHIELD Act, <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">which
requires patent trolls who file lawsuits and lose to pay all the legal fees and
costs incurred by the other party. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br />
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">However, not </span><a href="http://truthonthemarket.com/2013/03/15/the-shield-act-when-bad-studies-make-bad-laws/"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">everyone agrees</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> that patent trolls are the
problem nor do they believe the SHIELD Act and/or other proposals to be the
solution(s). One </span><a href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/03/stop-blaming-the-trolls-or-we-wont-be-able-to-fix-the-patent-system/"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">study</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> commissioned by PricewaterhouseCoopers
concludes that the success rate of patent trolls and practicing entities are
practically the same—23% for patent trolls and 34% for practicing entities—and
when the case actually goes to trial, both types of entities win at a rate of
about 66%. As a result some say its not the patent trolls that are the problem but
rather the patent system itself. Therefore, these same parties promote the idea
that general reforms of the patent system will prove more effective rather than
reforms targeted solely at patent trolls. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">With
patent reform fever spreading rapidly in Washington, DC, 2013 will prove to be
an intriguing and influential year in the field of patent law, especially given
the increased attention on and potential crackdown of patent trolls.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317136124704464959.post-69337914851115037522012-10-13T18:46:00.000-07:002013-05-13T20:08:12.404-07:00Abusing Fair Use: Is It Time to Clarify the Fair Use Doctrine in a Political Context?It happens every year; a candidate for political office runs
a campaign advertisement using copyrighted or trademarked material without the
owner’s permission. From Governor Mitt Romney using a 30 second clip of an
episode of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/28/nbc-mitt-romney-tom-brokaw-ad_n_1239107.html"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">NBC’s “Nightly News” program
hosted by Tom Brokaw</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">,
to President Barack Obama using footage of </span><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/andrea-mitchell-obama-ad-debate_n_1948823.html"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell
commentary</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> on
the first presidential debate, the campaigns are constantly pushing the
envelope. Recently, the </span><a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/aarp-to-obama-dont-mention-us-again/article/2509844#.UHmAvRgyKTs"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">AARP</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> and </span><a href="http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/10/sesame-street-requests-obama-ad-come-down-137888.html?hp=r7_b2"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Sesame Street</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> have entered the scuffle
requesting the campaigns to stop using their trademarks in campaign material. </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Even
with these complaints, the campaigns continue to use the intellectual property
without the permission of its owners. Campaigns sometimes hide behind the fair
use doctrine, while other times they just ignore the request and outright
refuse to comply. This strategy could be considered intentional and implemented
by the campaigns to gain free press; even if the campaign decides to take the
video down after it receives a cease and desist letter, the television and
internet media will have already showed the unauthorized content multiple times
free of charge to the campaign. Campaigns are certainly abusing the fair use
doctrine. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">What
does this cat-and-mouse game say about our legal system’s ability to protect
intellectual property owners and their rights? Is the ambiguity of the fair use
doctrine actually doing more harm then good? Should the doctrine be clarified,
at least, when applied in a political context? Regardless of what your answer
would be to these questions, it is clear that campaigns raising an alleged
“fair use defense” anytime they are caught using unauthorized content is
certainly doing an injustice to our legal system by distorting the public’s
perception of when the fair use doctrine actually applies. </span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317136124704464959.post-82554796504511838002012-09-27T18:33:00.000-07:002013-05-13T20:08:52.507-07:00Campaigns and their Involuntary Endorsers?: When Acquiring a Public Performance License isn’t Enough<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
</style> The campaign season is in high gear and the candidates are organizing
campaign rallies in towns all across America in an attempt to convince their constituents
that they should be elected for political office. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To effectively do so, candidates have always
used music as a medium to capture the essence and theme of their campaign.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though music at campaign rallies is as American as apple
pie, many campaigns are learning the hard way that in order to play a song,
they may need to do more than just acquire a public performance license from
ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The blanket
licenses offered by these performing rights organizations (“PRO”) do shield
campaigns from copyright claims, but musicians are now exercising their rights
beyond those given to them under the U.S. Copyright Act. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Recently, campaigns are receiving <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/story/2012-08-15/silversun-pickups-mitt-romney-song/57080412/1">cease
and desist letters</a> from musicians alleging a right of publicity claim under
state law, a trademark infringement claim, or a false endorsement claim under
the Lanham Act solely because the campaign played the song at an event. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Larry Iser, a lawyer who represented Jackson Browne against
John McCain and David Byrne against Charlie Crist, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2012/08/24/the-republicans-need-to-be-careful-about-what-music-they-play-at-the-convention/">argues</a>
that <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“[b]y using
someone’s famous song, you are turning that artist into an involuntary endorser
of that campaign and message.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
false endorsement claim, in the context of background music performed at
political rallies, has not been decided upon by a court of law as of
yet—however, it certainly is a winning argument in the court of public opinion.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In most situations, after receiving a
cease-and-desist letter, a campaign will simply stop playing the song. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But do they have to? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Under similar, but not identical facts, the Second
Circuit ruled in</span><a href="http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/251/251.F3d.56.00-7492.2000.html"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Oliveira v. Frito-Lay, Inc.</i>, 251 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2001)</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> that a musician cannot
assert a false endorsement claim because a company used the musician’s
performance of a song in their television commercial. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It stated that such a right is unprecedented
and would be “profoundly disruptive to commerce.” Adopting its reasoning, the
court in </span><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/33049984/Order-on-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment-in-Henley-v-DeVore"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Henley v. DeVore, 733 F.
Supp. 2d 1144 (C.D. Cal. 2010)</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> agreed that a false endorsement claim under the Lanham Act
cannot be maintained “based purely on the use of [a musician’s] songs” by a
campaign in a campaign video. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Though
these cases involved audiovisual works, which require a synchronization
license, it is reasonable to assume that the courts’ reasoning would also apply
to the public performance of music at a campaign rally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ben Sheffner, former Special Counsel on John
McCain's presidential campaign, </span><a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/05/devore-henley-file-oppositions-to.html"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">argues</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> that recognition of a false
endorsement claim for the public performance of music would “in fact <i>harm </i>copyright
owners' ability to license their works.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He claims that if a licensee, such as a bar,
music venue or even campaign, secures a bona fide blanket license from a PRO,
thus paying all known right holders a fee to publically perform the song, it
would be illogical to allow musicians to go back and demand additional
compensation under a claim of false endorsement. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Though
a false endorsement claim for publicly performing a song does not have much
legal support today, this may not be the case in the future. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cycle after cycle, cease-and-desist letters
have been effective in preventing political campaigns from publicly performing
a musician’s song. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even though this may
be due to a campaign’s unwillingness to engage in a legal battle over these
types of matters, campaigns may be doing themselves more harm than good. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By constantly submitting to the demands of
musicians, they are effectively admitting that a false endorsement claim may be
valid. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, presidential candidate
Mitt Romney has implicitly acknowledged this claim when he </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/arts/music/romney-and-gingrich-pull-songs-after-complaints.html?pagewanted=all"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">asked</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> for Kid Rock’s permission to
use his song “Born Free” even though he already secured a BMI license to
publicly perform it. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The more frequently
this acknowledgement occurs, listeners may actually begin to believe that songs
publicly performed at campaign events are a form of endorsement by the musician
of the campaign and its message; therefore, giving credence to a false
endorsement claim under the Lanham Act. </span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0