Tag Archives: Overreaching

U.S. District of Arizona: “No automatic injunction upon a finding of copyright infringement”

Originally posted 2008-09-05 17:38:37. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Not that the plaintiffs in the Designer Skin case didn’t get an injunction:  They did (here it is); a narrow one utilizing proposed language by defendants explicitly permitting S&L to use its own photographs of Designer Skin merchandise on its website (see the prior post).  But the Court ruled that they were not entitled to it merely by virtue of proving copyright infringement.  Here’s an excerpt from the opinion, discussing the point:

The parties dispute the law governing the issuance of a permanent injunction in a copyright-infringement case. Relying on MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993), Designer Skin argues that “a permanent injunction [should] be granted in a copyright infringement case when liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing violations.”  Conversely, S & L Vitamins argues that the MAI rule has been overruled by the recent Supreme Court opinion in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), and that the traditional four-factor test reaffirmed by eBay applies.

MAI’s general rule may accurately describe the result of applying the four-factor test to a copyright-infringement case in which liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing violations. Nevertheless, as Judge Wilson persuasively demonstrated in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 518 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1209-10 (C.D. Cal. 2007), this general rule, as a rule, is clearly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay. Thus, for the reasons given by Judge White in Grokster, Designer Skin’s reliance on this pre-eBay rule is unavailing, and the Court will apply the traditional four-factor test. . . .

This is an important holding, making the District of Arizona among the handful of earliest courts to apply the rule of eBay to copyright infringement.  After the jump, you can see how the court did apply it to one particular factor of interest, the need for a plaintiff seeking an injunction to prove irreparable harm.  The court agreed with S&L that past infringement does not lead to a presumption of future infringement. Unfortunately, to our client’s (nominal) detriment, and despite our argument that, seeing as how Designer Skin enunciated no coherent description of harm it suffered by the infringement — and that, in fact, it probably benefited from it — an injunction should not issue, the court found that there was irreparable harm, for reasons best expressed in its own words. Read More…

Overreaching, Part XXVII — Major League Bozos, confirmed

Originally posted 2006-08-09 10:22:48. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Sometimes we’re not only right, but a judge agrees with us. The AP reports:

Fantasy baseball leagues are allowed to use player names and statistics without licensing agreements because they are not the intellectual property of Major League Baseball, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

Baseball and its players have no right to prevent the use of names and playing records, U.S. District Court Judge Mary Ann Medler in St. Louis ruled in a 49-page summary judgment.

Major League Baseball claimed that intellectual property laws and so-called “right of publicity” make it illegal for fantasy leagues to make money off the identities and stats of professional players.

But even if the players could claim the right of publicity against commercial ventures by others, Medler wrote, the First Amendment takes precedent because CBC, which runs CDM Fantasy Sports, is disseminating the same statistical information found in newspapers every day.

Here‘s the decision.

Some intel on INTEL®

Originally posted 2010-04-07 03:15:14. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

CIA Headquarters - intel inside

There's intel inside.

BUMPED from January 1, 2010 and UPDATED due to decision (scroll to the bottom for the stunning conclusion):

Had you heard about this one from Mike Masnick?

Chip giant Intel has a bit of a reputation for being a trademark bully at times, threatening or suing many companies just for having “intel” in their name somewhere — including a travel agency and a jeans company. Now, before anyone brings it up, yes, as a trademark holder the law requires you to enforce your trademark against infringement, lest it become considered “generic” (such as xerox machines, kleenex tissues, aspirin and other brand names that became generic).  But, the key in all of those generic situations was that the use was applied to things that directly competed with the original brand’s products. People referred to other tissues as “kleenex” and it stuck. Intel’s lawyers seem to go out of their way to find potential infringement where there obviously is none at all.

Paul Alan Levy alerts us to the latest such case, where Intel has sued the operators of the Mexico Watch newsletter, because its domain is LatinIntel.com. Of course, the reason for that is that it is using the commonly accepted abbreviation of “intel” as short for “intelligence.” It’s common shorthand, especially within government circles, to refer to gathered intelligence as simply “intel.” . . .

More importantly, no one is going to look at LatinIntel.com and confuse it for the world’s largest computer chip maker. No one is going to look at that site and wonder how come they can’t order a Centrino processor. There’s simply no confusion at all. . . .

Well, when I first read that post, I thought Mike may just be on to something there. Here’s how I see it now:

UPDATE:  Intel loses (don’t get excited about the “decision” itself however!)

Yay us!

Glory and gratitude to my co-counsel Colby Springer who nailed it at oral argument.

MORE:  Is less.

Fat lady sings: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in Designer Skin v S & L Vitamins

Originally posted 2008-09-05 17:01:27. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The District of Arizona ruled today in a case we defended through trial and have reported on here extensively.  The decision is here; the minute entry on the electronic docket reads as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW – that S & L Vitamins has infringed Designer Skin’s copyrights in the electronic renderings of the 42 products styled [by various brand names] and that Designer Skin is entitled to a permanent injunction enjoining S & L Vitamins from any such future infringement of these copyrights;

FURTHER ORDERED that S & L Vitamins has not infringed Designer Skin’s copyrights in the electronic renderings of the 12 products styled [by various brand names];

FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear its own costs in this matter.

Signed by Judge James A Teilborg

No attorneys’ fees for either side.  The injunction reads as follows (per the minute entry); prefatory language is omitted and emphasis is added:

FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION in favor of Designer Skin, LLC against S&L Vitamins, Inc. . . . S & L Vitamins . . . are hereby immediately and permanently ENJOINED from publicly displaying, using, copying, or otherwise infringing Designer Skin’s copyrights in these electronic renderings for any purpose whatsoever. Nothing herein, however, shall be construed to enjoin S & L Vitamins from taking, using, or displaying original photographs of the physical Products themselves in connection with S & L Vitamins’ sale of the Products on the internet.

Signed by Judge James A Teilborg

Interested persons may wish to ponder how, and to what extent, the Court addressed the issues framed by the counsel for the respective parties, including identification of what indeed are “Designer Skin’s copyrights in [its] electronic renderings,” by considering the proposed findings and facts and conclusions of law submitted by the plaintiffs, and by the defendants, respectively.

For practitioners interested in the law of injunctions, the most interesting part of the decision concerns the court’s application of the rule in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) that there is no automatic entitlement to an injunction upon a finding of infringement to a copyright infringement case.  We have made a separate post addressing that part of the decision.

S&L’s website is here, by the way.  Buy Designer Skin lotion from S&L!  It’s the way both sides pay their lawyers!

Unilateral copyright law

Originally posted 2006-10-23 23:37:37. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Eugene Volokh joins the pile-on regarding a website that claims to exempt its contents from the liberating effects of the fair use doctrine.  The North Country Gazette, a publication whose editorial fare contains a remarkably high percentage of Terry Schiavo-oriented stories, takes the position that due to this fiat, we cannot excerpt the likes of:

An intoxicated Granville man has been charged with felony criminal mischief for throwing a portable urinal against the wall in a treatment room at the Glens Falls Hospital, destroying sterile equipment.

No, that doesn’t sound right.

But couldn’t the website, if they’d phrased it differently — as a contractual agreement, i.e., a condition precedent to use of the website — theoretically make such a stipulation stick?  Maybe, possibly.  But this heavy-handed approach seems assured to do only one thing:  Generate links to the website.  Which it has.

More, more, Moore!

Originally posted 2010-08-02 12:49:54. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Joe CollegeOne of my favorite ever topics here on LOC has been the litigation brought by the University of Alabama against painter Daniel Moore for unauthorized artistic depiction of trademarks.  As I reported last November, after first writing about this emerging issue four years earlier:

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Propst said in an opinion that Moore did not violate trademark laws by painting scenes of Crimson Tide football without licensing the work through the university. He rejected UA’s argument that the football team’s uniform and colors are iconic enough to trump First Amendment rights in fine art.

‘This court concludes that the depiction of the uniforms in the paintings is incidental to the purpose and expression of the paintings; that is, to artistically depict and preserve notable football plays in the history of University of Alabama football,’ Propst wrote in his memorandum opinion.

As I said then,

You don’t have to go as far as I and praise the kinder, gentler world of the past when an ambitious entrepreneur could pay homage, and maybe pay the mortgage, by taking – yes, horrors! — “free rides” on significant popular culture phenomena that were unlikely to be deemed “affiliations” or “authorized merchandise” without doing the high-end brand equity any harm at all (and probably some good).

This campaign by Alabama, though, really does take the rent-grabbing aspect of this business model to truly offensive levels.  There’s no doubt that NCAA schools and other pro sports teams sell “official” sports art, but it is utterly, utterly meaningless to fans whether this art is “approved,” “official,” “endorsed” or anything else (much less “fine”).  The claim here is simply “The University of Alabama owns everything about the Crimson Tide, and no one is going to make a penny off fan enthusiasm for the team but us.  Period.”

Notwithstanding that, well, yes, the Lanham Act does by its terms protect “approved and endorsed” as well as “source of origin,” I stand by this argument — which is rather narrow, mainly that the NCAA schools and other pro sports leagues should acknowledge that none of this has anything to do with fans, quality or anything other than what may or may not be a legally-granted franchise on branded enthusiasm.

In any case, the decision could not be abided by Big Collegiate IP, which appealed the ruling to the Eleventh Circuit.  Last Friday Moore filed his brief as respondent.

The amicus brief (available here) filed by Big Collegiate IP demonstrates that the schools continue their goal-line defense of intellectual dishonesty in their the presentation of this issue.   Read More…

Diversion, yes, but no

Originally posted 2009-11-26 08:30:51. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Some people have all the luck in the Eastern District of New York.  Whereas me — I think I’ve got it coming to me right down the middle, and then it seems to get, I don’t know — diverted from me!

So some lawyers get assigned judges in the Eastern District of New York whose ideas about trademark law and, well, the Federal Rules of Evidence — and, actually, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have, well, um . . . okay, I won’t say.  But in their courtrooms this is the kind of thing happens to “unauthorized resellers,” regardless of the actual “law” stuff.

RDC BIG BEARDI know, regular readers are sick of hearing about the S&L case, but I’m just framing the story here, okay?  Stick with me.

And then there are other judges in that same court who actually not only get it, but really, really, really get it:  There’s no such thing as “diversion” of authentic, untainted merchandise by “unauthorized” resale on the Internet.  Whether or not the manufacuter of a product thinks you need a whole two years of community college or that certificate from beauty school to slather on hair goop or tanning sludge, that preference does not “run with” the over-hyped blech they sell.

So — still setting the stage here, stay with me! — Judge Leonard Wexler, in 2007, went this far to make that point, as reported here exactly two year agos from tomorrow:

L’Oréal maintains that to keep the value, integrity and status of the products, they are supposed to be sold only by company-trained professionals in fashionable salons. Matrix alone “has been the number one professional hair brand on the market, with an estimated 16 percent market share,” L’Oréal said in court papers.

Quality King and Pro’s Choice, however, were obtaining the products in violation of the injunction by buying them, or, as it is called, diverting them, from middlemen and reselling them to nonqualified dealers, L’Oréal contended.

Diverting attention

Diverting attention

In his opinion, Wexler declined to enforce the old injunction, in effect, throwing out L’Oréal’s case against the two companies.

The judge said that if L’Oréal wanted seriously “to stop diversion of Matrix products,” it could terminate those of its distributors who are the sources of the diverted products.

He actually declined to enforce the old injunction, did Judge Wexler, because it would have actually been, well, wrong to!  Because of the law stuff.

Isn’t that enough mazal for Quality King?  Can’t some other lawyers in other courtrooms in that District have some of that good fortune?

No!  Evidently, on appeal of the earlier decision, the Second Circuit affirmed his vacatur (cancellation) of the injunction going forward, but remanded for further determination of whether the injunction should be not only — not “only”! — vacated, but also “terminated,” i.e., retroactively time-traveled into non-ever-existence.

So once more comes Matrix, the plaintiff, and with them this time big guns from the collossal Weil Gotshal, a real New York law firm this time.  So, was it a good idea to spend a good 50% more on fees (not to mention their markup on donuts!) to make the same arguments? Read More…

Unlovely SPAM

Originally posted 2007-01-08 22:45:17. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Hormel won’t give up.  And neither will Spam Arrrest, LLC (which makes a great product I’ve used for years). A press release from Spam Arrest reports:

Spam Arrest LLC, which provides the popular web service software to eliminate email spam, hopes to end its four year legal battle against Hormel next month. Spam Arrest is the only company ever, except Hormel Foods Corporation, to secure a trademark including the word “spam” recorded on the principal United States trademark register. For nearly four years, Spam Arrest has defended its trademark against Hormel’s lawsuit seeking to cancel the SPAM ARREST trademark registration….

Spam Arrest has incurred almost $500,000 defending its trademark rights. “We’ve spent years fighting for our trademark, while much larger companies have simply abandoned their trademark applications after threats from Hormel,” said Brian Cartmell, CEO of Spam Arrest. “Not one person confuses our anti-spam service with Hormel’s canned meat — the average American consumer is smarter than that.”

There you have it, canned and virtually inedible.  spamA ridiculous three-and-a-half-year crusade meant to “take back” trademark rights arguably never earned under the guise of trademark dilution, the law that made trademark a right in gross for the privileged few; a claim — quite credible — that many smaller companies have simply folded their tents rather than defend their businesses, the very essence of IP enforcement abuse; an utter absence of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION; certainly no evidence of damages and every reason to believe that the coinage of “spam” for junk email has done more to build this brand than anything, including Monty Python, could ever do; and a half million dollars donated to America’s most deserving (and, I might add, most handsome) sub-class of learned professionals.

Climbing off my tinned-meat box, here’s some interesting spice for your ham from the press release:

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the federal administrative court charged with overseeing the national trademark office, has decided to hold the final hearing for case number 92042134, Hormell vs. Spam Arrest, before a live audience of trademark lawyers in New York City. The hearing will take place at the Practicing Law Institute in New York on February 23, 2007.

Now that is fascinating. Here’s a link to the schedule for the PLI course featuring this live argument. I’d attend in a second if I had been one of the torchbearers for Spam Arrest’s commitment to principle, freedom and justice. Since I’m not, I’ll have to use the $1,295.00 course tuition and buy things like food. Not Spam, of course. Nothing personal — doctor’s orders.

Designer Skin v. S&L Vitamins trial update

Originally posted 2008-07-17 11:39:17. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The remaining issues in the case, you may recall, were copyright infringement and Arizona unfair competition. Here is the status per this morning’s minute entry in the court’s electronic case filing docket:

Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge James A Teilborg on 7/16/2008: Jury Trial – Day 2 held. Plaintiff’s case continues. Evidence and testimony presented. Plaintiff rests. Defendant rests. The Court grants defendant’s oral Rule 50 Motion as to statutory damages, actual damages and unfair competition claim. The Court grants defendant’s oral Rule 50 motion to dismiss defendant Lawrence Sagarin as a defendant. The remaining issue in the case is the injunction issue. Closing arguments. Jury deliberations. Jury to return at 9:00 a.m. 7/17/2008 to resume deliberations. (Court Reporter David German.) (TLB )

A tad terse and bloodless — quite unlike how trial has gone.  Not terse or bloodless at all.  [UPDATE:  Here's the transcript.  Dismissal of the damages claims were stipulated; see the ruling from the bench at page 124 of the PDF for the ruling as to Sagarin.]

“The Court grants defendant’s oral Rule 50 Motion as to statutory damages, actual damages and unfair competition claim” means “The Court grants defendant’s’ oral motion to dismiss Designer Skin’s claims for statutory damages, actual damages and unfair competition. (Earlier on the court declined to take our “suggestion” of a lack of copyright jurisdiction.)

So, so far: No damages, no plaintiff attorneys’ fees in play. Jury (advisory per Rule 39(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; injunction against further use of Designer Skin’s “electronic renderings” is not a jury issue, but they are charged with deciding whether there was copyright infringement) is out; they return this morning, Phoenix time, at 9.

We will update and backfill…

UPDATE: The jury returned a verdict of infringement on 42 of the 54 copyrights. In post-verdict interviews, interestingly, the jurors reported they would have awarded no damages, or nominal damages, had the judge permitted them to consider damages. (Per the above the damages claims were dismissed.) The jurors rejected the idea that a manufacturer is entitled to damages in connection with the sale by third parties of merchandise the manufacturer already sold once before, regardless of the legal theory. This came as quite a surprise to the plaintiff’s legal team, whereas the advisory verdict of infringement (which the court indicated he would adopt) was not particularly surprising to us… considering.

RELATED POST: Two Cities.

Putting trademark in the corner

Originally posted 2007-08-25 22:45:49. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Catchphrases such as THREE-PEAT with no coherent secondary meaning and no meaningful trademark identity are one of the really galling misuses of trademarks these days.  Nick Daly sends along this story (link added):

Lionsgate Film Studio has sued 15 companies for allegedly selling their merchandise featuring its trademarked [sic] phrase “Nobody puts Baby in a corner” from the 1987 hit movie “Dirty Dancing.”. . .

The suit, filed in Los Angeles last week, alleges that the use of the phrase by the companies wrongly sends the message to the consumers that the merchandise was authorized for sale by Lionsgate.

This is silly. Not every “good line” from a movie that’s silk-screened onto a trinket lures consumers into thinking that the merchandise has to do with the movie in any formal way. To the contrary, consumers recognize this as a mere cultural reference. But cleverness should not be not a basis for granting trademark rights. This is no more than trademark as cultural rent seeking, an old topic around here, and it’s despicable regrettable.

“Good lines” used to be their own reward. The late Phil Rizzuto was known by millions for his “trademark” use of the phrase “Holy Cow” in calling baseball games. This “trademark” benefited “the Scooter” without recourse to the Lanham Act: It was something that projected his reputation, enhanced his career and the demand for his services, and gave joy and pleasure to his fans.

Contrast THREE-PEAT — a registered trademark of basketball coach Pat Riley, meant to describe a thrice-repeating professional sports championship. Beaucoup clever. But a trademark? For what? Some junk that his company sold around the time he registered the mark, solely for purposes of establishing bona fide trademark use? I’d love to see the survey that could establish any good or service consumers associate with this coinage. That survey will never be taken, because the kinds of companies shut down by lawsuits by the likes of Riley and Lionsgate typically can’t afford to litigate (a survey alone can easily cost six figures of money).

Thus the abuse of the Lanham Act continues. Ironically, it’s unnecessary. I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that NOBODY PUTS BABY IN THE CORNER isn’t making Lionsgate a dime today, because it is essentially worthless as anything but a lever over other peoples’ use.

Trademark blogger Ron ColemanBut you ask: Wait, why shouldn’t Lionsgate be rewarded for its clever phrase (I guess it was clever; I did not see the movie) or the “artistic” moment or recollection it evokes? But it has been! This line presumably made their movie better, and a better movie made them over a fifth of a billion dollars in box office receipts.

And that’s what — and all that — a good catchphrase should be. You know: Its own reward.

UPDATE:  Brett Trout points out there isn’t even a registration for this phrase.  Lots of other good stuff in his piece.  Hat tip to Blawg Review.

Best of 2009: “Orange you glad you’re such mullahs?”

Originally posted 2009-12-26 22:48:55. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

This was first posted on April 29, 2009:

William Lozito at Name Wire writes about a counterfeiting double-cross, or is it triple-cross or something more?, that is so byzantine in its fruity dimensions that only the wretched Zionist Entity could have hatched it. So, what happens when Jew oranges infiltrate the Islamic Republic of Iran’s citrus bins, formerly believed impregnable against the Elders of Zion and their nefarious schemes?:

Fruity Jew

Fruity Jew

[T]he seemingly innocent appearance of “Jaffa Sweetie Israel-PO” oranges was enough to make one Iranian official declare that “rogue elements” were trying to “disgrace the ruling government.”

As it turns out, those “rogue elements” were unscrupulous Chinese middlemen, who illegally used the “Jaffa Sweetie” brand name on their counterfeit fruit.

The problem was exacerbated by the fact that “President Ahmadinejad inadvertently distributed the fruit during a two day goodwill visit to the town of Salam in southern Iran.”

The Chinese and Iranian investigators have counter-claimed that they actually bought the real thing in Israel and simply forgot to remove the stickers before sending them on to Iran. One then must wonder if it is the brand naming of the oranges or the oranges themselves that is the actual problem?

Jujyfruits

Jujyfruits

The Iranians claim they want no part of “Zionist” oranges, but if the Chinese investigators are correct, then they have been eating them via China, branded as Jaffa or something else, for some time.

Well this much is clear: Of all the wicked Jews controlling the world these days, it’s the Chinese ones who are the worst, you know?

Hat tip to Pamela Chestek, a known insidious fruit-handler herself.

Comments at the original post.

Clash of titans averted

Originally posted 2007-07-26 00:39:02. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Wrestliang press reports (link to this blog added):

Former WCW superstar Diamond Dallas Page has settled his trademark infringement lawsuit against hip hop mogul Jay-Z. The suit was settled on July 10th after the court signed off on an agreement reached between the two parties.

According to one source, the settlement included a monetary fee that was paid by Jay-Z to Page. In exchange for the fee, Page agreed to drop all claims in regards to the infringement suit. Each party paid their [sic] own legal fees.

I, for one, will sleep a lot better tonight, knowing that Jay-Z sliced off about ten minutes worth of earnings to pay off the offended “superstar.” It would, however, have been quite interesting to see if anyone really had any trademark rights in their shared hand gestures. I assume that since Page is a “former WCW superstar,” he isn’t using the gesture any more, so there are no licensing issues. I would love to see what the quality control provisions would provide!