Trademark Law Update 2008 Kentucky Law Update Louisville, KY September 5, 2008
Back to Basics <ul><li>Federal Marks - 15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq.  </li></ul><ul><li>State Marks – KRS §§365.561-365.613  </...
Types of Federal Marks
Federal Marks <ul><li>Federal marks take approximately 1 to 1 ½ years to register. </li></ul><ul><li>Reviewed by Examining...
State Marks <ul><li>Kentucky Secretary of State </li></ul><ul><li>2 weeks to register </li></ul><ul><li>Statutory protecti...
Hot Topics
TTAB Rules Updated <ul><li>New TTAB Rules – August 2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New rules mimic the FRCP </li></ul></ul><ul>...
Trademark Specimens <ul><li>Requirements for website specimens relaxed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“means for ordering” on the s...
Trade Dress Infringement <ul><li>Store Brands vs. Premium Brands </li></ul>
Trade Dress <ul><li>McNeil Nutritionals v. Heartland Sweeteners </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Addressed knock-off packaging for SP...
Trade Dress <ul><li>McNeil Nutritionals v. Heartland Sweeteners </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Side-by-side comparison permitted be...
Confusing?
Addidas v. Payless $300 Million Verdict (May 2008)
Marks in Meta-Tags <ul><li>N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide (11 th  Cir) </li></ul><ul><li>Using a competitor’s tradem...
Ambush Marketing
Parody <ul><li>Louis Vuitton v. Haute Diggity Dog </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Chewy Vuiton products don’t compete so no chance o...
 
False Endorsement?
Elements of False Endorsement <ul><li>Used in commerce </li></ul><ul><li>False or misleading representation of fact </li><...
Copyright Law Update 2008 Kentucky Law Update Louisville, KY September 5, 2008
<ul><li>Cover  original works of authorship , e.g., literary works, music and lyrics, dramatic works, pantomimes, pictures...
Duration of Copyright <ul><li>Subsists from the moment of creation </li></ul><ul><li>Term: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For works...
<ul><li>S2913- Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Bill.  </li></ul><ul><li>“ Orphan works” are copyrighted works for which the aut...
<ul><li>S 2591 - Super Bowl Party Bill </li></ul><ul><li>Bill would provide an exemption to the display right for non-prof...
<ul><li>HR 4789 – Performance Rights Act </li></ul><ul><li>This bill would provide for a performance royalty to artists wh...
<ul><li>HR 4279 – Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act </li></ul><ul><li>This bill would ...
<ul><li>HR 2060 – Internet Radio Equality Act </li></ul><ul><li>This legislation is in response to royalty rates set by th...
<ul><li>HR 2033 – Design Piracy Prohibition Act </li></ul><ul><li>This bill would extend copyright protection to fashion d...
<ul><li>Action brought by Perfect 10, Inc., the owner of copyrights in photographs of nude models, against Google, Inc. an...
<ul><li>Perfect 10 moved for preliminary injunctions and the court granted in part injunctive relief against Google.  </li...
<ul><li>The Appellate Court determined that Google and Amazon.com could be secondarily liable for third party infringement...
<ul><li>Issue - brief excerpts of Viacom properties posted on the YouTube site.  </li></ul><ul><li>The clips are posted by...
<ul><li>The threshold issue for application of the DMCA Safe Harbor is whether YouTube is in fact a service provider. This...
<ul><li>Issue – DMCA safe harbor </li></ul><ul><li>In this case an individual copyright owner sued YouTube for allowing th...
<ul><li>Producer of baseball fantasy league sought declaration of right to use names and statistics of major league player...
<ul><li>The district court also held the factual information was not copyrightable, an issue not addressed by the Court of...
<ul><li>Issue- Growing number of Internet-based sites containing content that has been generated by the users. For example...
<ul><li>In each instance the provider will need to avail itself of a safe harbor provision of the DMCA or risk enormous po...
<ul><li>MGM v. Grokster , Supreme Court held that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting copyright infr...
<ul><li>Motown Record Co. v. DiPietro . Suit based on file sharing against an individual that was initially identified as ...
<ul><li>Cincom Systems, Inc. v. Novelis Corp., et al. ,  </li></ul><ul><li>(SD OH 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Use, without exp...
<ul><li>Cincom Systems, Inc. v. Novelis Corp.  (SD OH 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Take-away  – Going forward, a licensee conte...
<ul><li>Tiseo Architects, Inc. v. B&B Pools,   </li></ul><ul><li>(6th Cir., 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>In a copyright infring...
<ul><li>Tiseo Architects, Inc. v. B&B Pools,   </li></ul><ul><li>(6th Cir., 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Determining similarity...
<ul><li>Thoroughbred Software Int’l v. Dice Corp., et al. , (6th Cir. 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff obtained judgment ...
<ul><li>In re: Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation   (2nd Cir. 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Class actio...
For More Information <ul><li>Jim Francis, Esq. </li></ul><ul><li>Stoll Keenon Ogden </li></ul><ul><li>(502) 333-6000 </li>...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Trademark/Copyright Law Update 2008

837 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
837
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Trademark/Copyright Law Update 2008

  1. 1. Trademark Law Update 2008 Kentucky Law Update Louisville, KY September 5, 2008
  2. 2. Back to Basics <ul><li>Federal Marks - 15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq. </li></ul><ul><li>State Marks – KRS §§365.561-365.613 </li></ul><ul><li>Trademark Trial and Appeal Board </li></ul><ul><li>Infringement </li></ul><ul><li>Malpractice rider often required </li></ul>
  3. 3. Types of Federal Marks
  4. 4. Federal Marks <ul><li>Federal marks take approximately 1 to 1 ½ years to register. </li></ul><ul><li>Reviewed by Examining Attorney that issues Office Actions which require legal arguments to overcome rejections. </li></ul><ul><li>Electronic filing and prosecution. </li></ul>
  5. 5. State Marks <ul><li>Kentucky Secretary of State </li></ul><ul><li>2 weeks to register </li></ul><ul><li>Statutory protection includes atty fees </li></ul><ul><li>Minimal examination </li></ul><ul><li>Difficult to cancel </li></ul>
  6. 6. Hot Topics
  7. 7. TTAB Rules Updated <ul><li>New TTAB Rules – August 2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New rules mimic the FRCP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Service on Applicant/Registrant Required </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Automatic protective order </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial discovery conference and disclosures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effectively creates a “rocket docket” to speed up proceedings </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Trademark Specimens <ul><li>Requirements for website specimens relaxed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“means for ordering” on the same webpage as the mark not restricted to an on-line shopping cart when additional information is reasonably required prior to ordering. </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Trade Dress Infringement <ul><li>Store Brands vs. Premium Brands </li></ul>
  10. 10. Trade Dress <ul><li>McNeil Nutritionals v. Heartland Sweeteners </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Addressed knock-off packaging for SPLENDA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Store brands permitted to come closer to the national brand than a competing national brand </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cannot “slavishly” copy the packaging and must prominently display the store brand </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Trade Dress <ul><li>McNeil Nutritionals v. Heartland Sweeteners </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Side-by-side comparison permitted because that’s how they are sold </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Intent to copy distinguished from intent to confuse </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ In short: any ‘thing’ that dresses a good can constitute trade dress.” Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Confusing?
  13. 13. Addidas v. Payless $300 Million Verdict (May 2008)
  14. 14. Marks in Meta-Tags <ul><li>N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide (11 th Cir) </li></ul><ul><li>Using a competitor’s trademarks in website meta-tags constitutes trademark infringement </li></ul><ul><li>Use in a webpage constitutes advertisement </li></ul>
  15. 15. Ambush Marketing
  16. 16. Parody <ul><li>Louis Vuitton v. Haute Diggity Dog </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Chewy Vuiton products don’t compete so no chance of confusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strength of the famous mark enabled the pardody </li></ul></ul>
  17. 18. False Endorsement?
  18. 19. Elements of False Endorsement <ul><li>Used in commerce </li></ul><ul><li>False or misleading representation of fact </li></ul><ul><li>In connection with goods or services </li></ul><ul><li>Likely to cause consumer confusion as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of goods or services </li></ul>
  19. 20. Copyright Law Update 2008 Kentucky Law Update Louisville, KY September 5, 2008
  20. 21. <ul><li>Cover original works of authorship , e.g., literary works, music and lyrics, dramatic works, pantomimes, pictures, sculpture, motion pictures, sound recordings, architectural works, computer software </li></ul><ul><li>Must be “ fixed in a tangible medium of expression ,” e.g., printed book, sound recording, videotape, script, handwritten notes ( like yours! ) </li></ul><ul><li>Does NOT cover any “idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery” </li></ul>What Copyrights Cover (17 USC §102)
  21. 22. Duration of Copyright <ul><li>Subsists from the moment of creation </li></ul><ul><li>Term: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For works by individual author(s): </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- For the author’s life and 70 yrs after death </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For works for hire, anonymous or pseudonymous works: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>120 yrs from creation or 95 yrs from first publication, whichever expires first </li></ul></ul></ul>
  22. 23. <ul><li>S2913- Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Bill. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Orphan works” are copyrighted works for which the author cannot be found or in some cases even identified. The fear of large statutory damages makes these works unusable to museums, historians, filmmakers and online services. </li></ul><ul><li>Bill limits infringement remedies for use of a copyrighted “orphan work” if the infringer can show that he or she 1) performed a diligent search to find the owner of the copyright; and 2) the infringing use provided attribution to the author (if known). </li></ul><ul><li>The act would limit monetary awards to reasonable compensation for use of the work or, in the case of a non-profit that immediately ceases the infringement, no compensation. </li></ul><ul><li>Status : Passed Judiciary Committee and now before the full senate. HR 5889 is a similar bill in the house </li></ul>
  23. 24. <ul><li>S 2591 - Super Bowl Party Bill </li></ul><ul><li>Bill would provide an exemption to the display right for non-profits showing copyrighted professional football broadcasts if no admission is charged. </li></ul><ul><li>Bill is a response to the NFL recent crackdown against church Super Bowl parties. </li></ul><ul><li>Bill only applies to professional football broadcasts. </li></ul><ul><li>Status : In committee </li></ul>
  24. 25. <ul><li>HR 4789 – Performance Rights Act </li></ul><ul><li>This bill would provide for a performance royalty to artists when their works are played on the radio. Currently royalties are paid by internet, satellite and cable broadcasters but not by AM and FM radio stations. </li></ul><ul><li>Status : In committee </li></ul>
  25. 26. <ul><li>HR 4279 – Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act </li></ul><ul><li>This bill would allow seizure of a computer with ‘dubious’ files and would set up an Intellectual Property Enforcement Division under the Deputy Attorney General. </li></ul><ul><li>Status : Passed House now in Senate. </li></ul>
  26. 27. <ul><li>HR 2060 – Internet Radio Equality Act </li></ul><ul><li>This legislation is in response to royalty rates set by the Copyright Protection Board which internet broadcasters felt were unreasonablely high. This bill would bring those rates in line with those traditionally charged in other mediums. </li></ul><ul><li>Status : In Committee </li></ul>
  27. 28. <ul><li>HR 2033 – Design Piracy Prohibition Act </li></ul><ul><li>This bill would extend copyright protection to fashion designs for a period of three years. Currently fashion designers can only protect themselves from counterfeit goods, primarily through the use of provisions of trademark law. Bill was introduced in 2006, but hearings have been held as recently as February 2008. Opponents note that distinguishing between fashion elements would be problematic. </li></ul><ul><li>Status : In committee </li></ul>
  28. 29. <ul><li>Action brought by Perfect 10, Inc., the owner of copyrights in photographs of nude models, against Google, Inc. and Amazon.com. The suit alleged direct, vicarious and contributory copyright infringement. </li></ul><ul><li>Google’s image search engine provides responses to queries including thumbnail images and framed linking. Perfect 10 viewed both as infringing its copyrighted images. In 2004 Perfect 10 filed suit against Google. </li></ul>Perfect 10 v. Google
  29. 30. <ul><li>Perfect 10 moved for preliminary injunctions and the court granted in part injunctive relief against Google. </li></ul><ul><li>Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and effectively removed the lower court’s injunction. The Ninth Circuit held that Perfect 10 had shown a likelihood of success for its case of infringement against Google with respect to the thumbnail images, but not the framing and that Google had shown that it would likely prevail on its fair use defense. </li></ul>
  30. 31. <ul><li>The Appellate Court determined that Google and Amazon.com could be secondarily liable for third party infringement if they knew of the infringing activities and had not taken reasonable steps in response. The Court remanded that portion of the action for a factual determination concerning secondary liability. </li></ul><ul><li>The Court declined to consider whether the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provided a “safe harbor” for the defendants since that had not been addressed at the trial court level. </li></ul>
  31. 32. <ul><li>Issue - brief excerpts of Viacom properties posted on the YouTube site. </li></ul><ul><li>The clips are posted by YouTube users. YouTube’s defense is the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. YouTube styles itself a service provider. The DMCA shifts the burden of monitoring infringement from service providers to content providers. </li></ul>Viacom v. YouTube
  32. 33. <ul><li>The threshold issue for application of the DMCA Safe Harbor is whether YouTube is in fact a service provider. This will turn on whether the conduct at issue is </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- Transitory communications; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- System caching; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Information storage; or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- Information location tools such as a search engine. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>YouTube will next have to show that it had no actual knowledge of the infringement, it moved expeditiously to disable access and that it received no financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity. </li></ul>
  33. 34. <ul><li>Issue – DMCA safe harbor </li></ul><ul><li>In this case an individual copyright owner sued YouTube for allowing the posting on YouTube of his video of the Reginald Denny beating. The Court has so far declined to grant summary judgment on whether YouTube meets the DMCA safe harbor requirement. </li></ul>
  34. 35. <ul><li>Producer of baseball fantasy league sought declaration of right to use names and statistics of major league players without a license. </li></ul><ul><li>Court granted summary judgment for the fantasy league producer. </li></ul><ul><li>8th Circuit affirmed the court’s holding that even though the fantasy league producer used the names of the players for a commercial purpose, its First Amendment rights took precedence over the players’ rights of publicity. </li></ul>
  35. 36. <ul><li>The district court also held the factual information was not copyrightable, an issue not addressed by the Court of Appeals. </li></ul><ul><li>MLBPA breached warranty of title because player names and statistics are in public domain. </li></ul><ul><li>TAKE AWAY – if you include no-use/no-contest provisions, be careful not to undercut them with warranty of title </li></ul><ul><li>Supreme Court did not grant certiorari in this case. </li></ul>
  36. 37. <ul><li>Issue- Growing number of Internet-based sites containing content that has been generated by the users. For example: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wikis. Informational sites such as Wikipedia where the information is generated collaboratively by multiple users. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Video/photography sharing sites such as YouTube. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Blogs. Literally a “web log.” These sites are free flowing discussion sites where the users engage in an information exchange. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social networking sites. </li></ul></ul>
  37. 38. <ul><li>In each instance the provider will need to avail itself of a safe harbor provision of the DMCA or risk enormous potential for copyright infringement liability. </li></ul>
  38. 39. <ul><li>MGM v. Grokster , Supreme Court held that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting copyright infringement is liable for the resulting acts of infringement. On remand, the district court issued a permanent injunction. </li></ul><ul><li>Virgin Records v. Thomas , First case brought by music industry against an individual, a single mother of two, related to file sharing. The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $9,250/song in damages, totaling more than $200,000. First of more than 20,000 file sharing cases. It signals a zero tolerance approach by the recording industry. </li></ul>
  39. 40. <ul><li>Motown Record Co. v. DiPietro . Suit based on file sharing against an individual that was initially identified as “Doe” in the proceedings. Still in pre-trial stage. </li></ul><ul><li>Universal Music Group v. MySpace . Suit alleges both direct infringement, similar to the YouTube cases and inducing infringement as in the Grokster case. </li></ul><ul><li>These cases show the clear intention of the recording industry to aggressively seek to stop P2P file sharers. </li></ul>
  40. 41. <ul><li>Cincom Systems, Inc. v. Novelis Corp., et al. , </li></ul><ul><li>(SD OH 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Use, without express consent of licensor, of software by surviving entity after corporate merger constitutes copyright infringement </li></ul><ul><li>6th Circuit previously held patent licenses are personal and not assignable unless expressly provided </li></ul><ul><li>The Cincom Court found this rule applies equally to copyright licenses </li></ul>
  41. 42. <ul><li>Cincom Systems, Inc. v. Novelis Corp. (SD OH 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Take-away – Going forward, a licensee contemplating corporate restructuring should be certain software licenses expressly permit transfer </li></ul><ul><li>Take-away – Looking Back, a licensee may need to secure SW licensor consent to any restructuring or sale </li></ul><ul><li>Failure to do so may result in both breach of contract and copyright infringement, with all of the presumptions and extraordinary remedies that attach to the latter </li></ul>
  42. 43. <ul><li>Tiseo Architects, Inc. v. B&B Pools, </li></ul><ul><li>(6th Cir., 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>In a copyright infringement action plaintiff has the burden of establishing: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>accused work is substantially similar to the original and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>that the similarity results from copying of protected elements and not from other circumstances or constraints. </li></ul></ul>
  43. 44. <ul><li>Tiseo Architects, Inc. v. B&B Pools, </li></ul><ul><li>(6th Cir., 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Determining similarity a Two-step process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>first - filter out aspects that are not original or not protected by copyright and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>second – compare just the remaining protected elements with the accused work </li></ul></ul>
  44. 45. <ul><li>Thoroughbred Software Int’l v. Dice Corp., et al. , (6th Cir. 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Plaintiff obtained judgment for license fees but lost its lost profits claim </li></ul><ul><li>QUESTION – is plaintiff a “prevailing party” as required to receive an award of atty fees </li></ul><ul><li>“ prevailing party” does not have to prevail in full, $200,000 judgment for actual damages more than de minimus and sufficient under statute </li></ul>
  45. 46. <ul><li>In re: Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation (2nd Cir. 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Class action parties reached settlement covering both registered and unregistered works </li></ul><ul><li>2 nd Circuit ruled Copyright Act’s registration requirement is jurisdictional and court lacks statutory subject matter jurisdiction over, and cannot approve settlement of, infringement claims based on unregistered copyrights </li></ul>
  46. 47. For More Information <ul><li>Jim Francis, Esq. </li></ul><ul><li>Stoll Keenon Ogden </li></ul><ul><li>(502) 333-6000 </li></ul><ul><li>(859) 231-3902 </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>

×