Pattishall IP Blog

June 26, 2014

Aereo’s Internet-Based Television Streaming Services May Be Wizardry, But the Supreme Court is in No Mood for Magic

Filed under: Copyright, Internet, Litigation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 12:17 pm

Ekhoff_Jessica_2 F LRby Jessica Ekhoff, Associate

Describing its Internet-based television streaming services, tech start-up Aereo proclaims, “It’s not magic. It’s wizardry.”[1] In yesterday’s 6-3 decision the Supreme Court disagreed, or at the very least, adopted a staunchly anti-wizardry stance.[2]

Justice Breyer, writing for the majority in American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., characterized the issue before the Court as whether “Aereo, Inc., infringes this exclusive right [of public performance under §106(4) of the Copyright Act] by selling its subscribers a technologically complex service that allows them to watch television programs over the Internet at about the same time as the programs are broadcast over air.”[3] Despite Aereo’s self-description as a mere equipment supplier doing no “performing” of its own, the Court held in the affirmative.

The Court analyzed the issue in two parts: whether Aereo “performed” under the Copyright Act, and if so, whether the performance was “public.”

In concluding that Aereo did, in fact, perform under the Copyright Act, the majority of the Court turned to the 1976 amendments to the Act, which were adopted, in large part, to bring community antenna television, or CATV—the precursor to cable television—within the scope of the Act. CATV functioned by placing antennas on hills above cities, then using coaxial cables to carry the television signals received by the antennas into subscribers’ homes. CATV did not select which programs to carry, but rather served as a conduit for the transmission and amplification of television signals. Before the 1976 amendments, Supreme Court precedent considered CATV to be a passive equipment supplier that did not “perform” under the Act.[4] After the amendments, to “perform” an audiovisual work such as a television program meant “to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.”[5] CATV thus “performed” the shows it transmitted because it both showed the television programs’ images to its subscribers, and made the accompanying sounds audible. Over a strong dissent authored by Justice Scalia[6], the majority found that, because its services were so similar to those once offered by CATV, Aereo also “performed” under the post-1976 definition of the term.[7]

Having determined that Aereo’s services constitute a performance under the Copyright Act, the Court next turned to the issue of whether those performances are public. Aereo argued its services do not constitute public performance because whenever a subscriber selects a program to watch, Aereo places a unique copy of the show in that subscriber’s folder on Aereo’s hard drive, which no one other than that subscriber can view. If another subscriber wants to watch the same show, she will receive her own copy of the program in her own folder from Aereo. The Court dismissed this argument, finding the “technological difference” inconsequential in light of Congress’s clear intent to bring anything analogous to CATV within the scope of the Copyright Act’s requirements. Under the post-1976 Act, an entity performs a copyrighted work publicly any time it “transmits” a performance. A performance is “transmitted” when it is communicated by any device or process beyond the place from which it is sent, whether the recipients receive the transmission at the same time and place, or at different times and places.[8] Aereo therefore publicly performs a copyrighted television program each time its system sends a copy of that program to a subscriber’s personal Aereo folder.

The majority characterized its holding as a “limited” one, and was careful to emphasize that its decision does not apply to other new technologies, such as cloud-based storage and remote storage DVRs. But with a slew of amici curiae predicting the decision could have a catastrophic impact on the tech industry, there are surely some who will take no comfort from the Court’s assurances. Aereo, unfortunately, may not have a spell to resurrect itself.

*     *     *

Jessica Ekhoff is an associate with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, trade secret and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues. Jessica’s practice focuses on trademark, trade dress, copyright and false advertising litigation, as well as film clearance, media and entertainment, and brand management.

[1] https://www.aereo.com/about

[2] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf

[3] American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 13-461, slip op. at 1, 573 U.S. __ (2014).

[4] Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (1968); Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 415 U.S. 394 (1974).

[5] 17 U.S.C. § 101.

[6] Justice Scalia argues that Aereo does not “perform” because it is the subscriber, rather than Aereo, who selects the program she wishes to watch, which in turn activates the individual antennae Aereo has assigned to her for the purpose of viewing that program. This means it is the subscriber who is doing the performing, since she is the one rousing Aereo’s antennae from dormancy and calling up a specific program to watch. Justice Scalia went on to note that although he disagrees with the majority’s interpretation of “perform,” he agrees that Aereo’s activities ought not to be allowed, either because Aereo is secondarily liable for its subscribers’ infringement of the Networks’ performance rights, or because it is directly liable for violating the Networks’ reproduction rights. If future courts fail to find Aereo liable under either of those theories, Justice Scalia advocates relying on Congress to close the loophole. Slip Op. at 12.

[7] Slip Op. at 8.

[8] 17 U.S.C. § 101.

For a printer-friendly version, click here.

June 18, 2014

REDSKINS Trademark Registrations Canceled After 8 More Years of Litigation

Filed under: TM Registration, Trademark (General), TTAB — Tags: , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 3:38 pm

 

PB LRby Phillip Barengolts, Partner, and Kristine A. Bergman, Summer Associate

In the long-running dispute between representatives of Native Americans and Pro-Football, Inc. AKA the Washington Redskins (“Washington”), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“TTAB”) cancelled six of Washington’s registrations for the mark REDSKINS.[1] It was not the first time the TTAB ruled against Washington, finding that the REDSKINS trademark was disparaging and, therefore, not registrable under Section 2(a) of the Federal Trademark Act.[2] Of course, that has been the nickname of the Washington football team since 1932.

Despite mass media misinterpretation of the implications of this opinion, as the TTAB expressly stated, “This decision concerns only the statutory right to registration under Section 2(a). We lack statutory authority to issue rulings concerning the right to use trademarks.” (emphasis original). This decision does not require the Washington team to change its name. It does not prevent the team from continuing to use the REDSKINS nickname in marketing. It does not affect the team’s ability to license merchandise using the REDSKINS name.[3] Furthermore, it does not prevent the team from suing to enforce its rights in the REDSKINS name against others who may try to use it.[4] It merely prevents the team from enjoying the special protections afforded to an owner of a federal registration.[5]

Ultimately, the TTAB found that the registrations for REDSKINS “were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered…” This finding is remarkable because the original registration for THE REDSKINS issued in 1967.

In its analysis, the TTAB first determined that the term “redskins,” although associated with the football team, had not been “stripped” of its ethnic meaning. Second, the TTAB found that a “substantial composite” of Native Americans were disparaged by the mark. [6] The primary basis for this conclusion was a resolution issued in 1993 by the National Congress of American Indians (“NCAI”), which represented approximately 30 percent of Native Americans during the relevant time. This resolution also was found to be competent evidence of the past views of Native Americans.

The TTAB also revisited Washington’s laches defense, which was discussed in the Harjo case. The TTAB rejected the defense because it “does not apply to a disparagement claim where the disparagement pertains to a group of which the individual petitioner or petitioners comprise one or more members.” Laches is an equitable defense and, therefore, the TTAB highlighted that “it is difficult to justify a balancing of equities where a registrant’s financial interest is weighed against human dignity.” Moreover, the TTAB noted that laches is inapplicable in cases presenting a broader public policy concern. Finally, the TTAB stated that, even on the merits, the defense could not stand because there was no showing that the petitioners had unreasonably delayed in bringing the petition after each reached the age of majority or that there was economic prejudice to Washington due to the delay.

Unusually for a TTAB decision, there was a dissent. Lest the dissenting judge be deemed insensitive, the primary criticism levelled at the majority was that the evidence presented by the petitioners was insufficient to prove that “redskins” was a disparaging term in 1967 (and when the subsequent trademark registrations issued). For purposes of the eventual appeal, the dissent has some merit because the evidence relied on by the petitioners was the same as that relied on by the Harjo petitioners – and which was deemed insufficient by the D.C. Circuit to support the TTAB’s original decision finding REDSKINS disparaging.

Despite pressure from the Obama administration, Washington team owner Dan Snyder has refused to change the team’s name.[7] So, stay tuned for the eventual appeal.

*          *          *

Phillip Barengolts is a partner with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Pattishall McAuliffe represents both petitioners and defendants in trademark, copyright, trade secret and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues. Mr. Barengolts’ practice focuses on litigation, transactions, and counseling in domestic and international trademark, trade dress, unfair competition, trade secret, Internet, and copyright law. He teaches trademark and copyright litigation at John Marshall Law School, and co-authored Trademark and Copyright Litigation, published by Lexis Publishing.

Kristine A. Bergman is a summer associate with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP.

 

[1] http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92046185&pty=CAN&eno=199.

[2] The original petition to cancel the REDSKINS trademark registrations was brought on September 10, 1992, and the petitioners prevailed before the TTAB. See Harjo v. Pro Football, Inc., 30 U.S.P.Q.3d 1828 (TTAB 1994). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed the TTAB’s original decision, which was upheld by D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. However, that ruling relied on the defense of laches because the petitioners had waited too long to bring the petition to cancel after reaching the age of majority — the issue of disparagement on the merits was not resolved.

[3] Unless a specific license had a requirement that the mark be registered, which the NFL undoubtedly would not have agreed to, given the long pendency of this objection.

[4] But see http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2014/06/unregistrable-means-unprotectable-by.html. The decision discussed by Prof. Tushnet here addresses very different facts, but it raises an interesting potential defense to any infringement claims Washington may bring over the REDSKINS mark in the future, if the TTAB decisions is upheld on appeal, of course.

[5] Perhaps of greatest importance in the context of merchandising would be the unavailability of a claim of counterfeiting, for which registration is required.

[6] Of note, the TTAB stated that a “substantial composite” need not be a majority and ultimately found that “thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite.”

[7] U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Cancels Redskins Trademark, Huff. Post (June 18, 2014 at 10:22 A.M), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/redskins-trademark-canceled_n_5507169.html.

 

For a printer friendly version, click here.

June 12, 2014

Supreme Court Permits Competitor False Advertising Suits to Proceed Under Lanham Act Despite FDA Regulation

Filed under: False Advertising, Litigation — Tags: , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 2:51 pm

PB LRby Phillip Barengolts, Partner

Today, the Supreme Court provided competitors with a powerful new tool to combat potentially false and misleading statements on food and beverage labels, or any other FDA regulated materials – a cause of action for false advertising under the Lanham Act. The unanimous opinion[1] in POM Wonderful LLC v Coca-Cola Co., Slip Op. No. 12-761, 573 U.S. _ (2014)[2], specifically permits POM to proceed with its false advertising claim that Coca-Cola’s MINUTE MAID juice, which contains 99.4% apple and grape juice, .3% pomegranate juice, .2% blueberry juice, and .1% raspberry juice, but displays the words “pomegranate blueberry” in all capital letters (as shown below), misleads consumers, overruling the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to the contrary.

POM v Coca Cola Picture

The key issue before the Court was whether The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which regulates labeling of food and beverages, among other things, precludes[3] a false advertising claim over an FDCA-compliant label. The FDCA prohibits false or misleading labeling. 21 U.S.C. § 343(a). The FDCA does not allow private parties to enforce its provisions through a lawsuit. 21 U.S.C. § 337. Here, Coca-Cola complied with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements for juice labeling. 21 CFR § 102.33(d).

Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit had ruled in Coca-Cola’s favor, essentially finding that since the FDA did not impose label requirements as stringent as those sought by POM through its lawsuit, then POM should not have a private right of action to impose such requirements under the Lanham Act. The Court, however, found that the “FDCA, by its terms, does not preclude Lanham Act suits.” Slip Op. at 9. Furthermore, the Court noted that when Congress enacted the preemption provisions of the FDCA, “if anything [Congress] indicated it did not intend the FDCA to preclude requirements arising from other sources” and that “pre-emption of some state requirements does not suggest an intent to preclude federal claims.” Slip Op. at 11, citing Setser v. U.S., 566 U.S. __, __ (2012) (slip op., at 6-7).

Ultimately, the Court chose to read the Lanham Act and FDCA as complements – one protecting against unfair competition, the other protecting public health and safety. Slip Op. at 11. Indeed, the Court noted that “[a]llowing Lanham Act suits takes advantage of synergies among multiple methods of regulation.” Id. at 12. This decision will have consequences for companies in regulated industries – especially those in the food and beverage fields – because, before placing products into the marketplace, they will now need to review labels and statements both to assure compliance with FDA regulations and in light of Lanham Act principles to avoid competitor suits.

*          *          *

Phillip Barengolts is a partner with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, trade secret and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues. Mr. Barengolts’ practice focuses on litigation, transactions, and counseling in domestic and international trademark, trade dress, unfair competition, trade secret, Internet, and copyright law. He teaches trademark and copyright litigation at John Marshall Law School, and co-authored Trademark and Copyright Litigation, published by Lexis Publishing.

 

[1] Justice Breyer did not participate in considering this case.

[2] Read the entire opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-761_6k47.pdf.

[3] This is not a preemption case – preemption addresses the situation when state and federal laws conflict. The Court made sure to point this out in its opinion. The FDCA does preempt certain state laws on misbranding. 21 U.S.C. §343-1(a).

For a printer-friendly version, click here.

May 20, 2014

Can California Chrome THREE-PEAT? Its Owners Sure Hope So

Filed under: Advertising, TM Registration — Tags: , , , , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 3:28 pm

Paul Borovay F LRBy Paul A. Borovay, Associate

California Chrome, the horse that won both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes over the last three weeks, has the opportunity to be the first Triple Crown winner in 36 years if it wins the Belmont Stakes on June 7. While California Chrome flirts with history next month, its owners are securing its rights in the horse’s name to capitalize on its (potential) legacy.[1]

As ESPN.com reported this morning,[2] Steven and Carolyn Coburn and Perry and Denise Martin, who make up the horse’s ownership entity of Dumb Ass Partners, filed for the trademark CALIFORNIA CHROME, Ser. No. 86/281,678, for “[a]thletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms.” According to the article, California Chrome’s owners hope to cash in on licensing deals that are likely dependent on California Chrome winning at the Belmont Stakes.

California Chrome’s owners will not be the only ones this spring hoping to cash in on an outcome dependent trademark. Pat Riley, the owner of the trademark THREEPEAT, Reg. No. 4,051,757, hopes to capitalize on the mark once again if the Miami Heat manage to repeat as NBA champions for a third straight year. [3] Riley first applied for the THREE-PEAT mark in 1988, Reg. No. 1,552,980, when his Los Angeles Lakers were on the cusp of winning three consecutive NBA championships only to be swept by the Detroit Pistons in the championship series.

While he was unable to exploit the mark in the 1980s, Riley has monetized it several times since then. For example, Riley reported earned over $300,000 in licensing revenue when the Chicago Bulls won three consecutive championships (twice) in the 1990s.[4]   Meanwhile, the New York Yankees and Los Angeles Lakers have also won three consecutive championships each, adding even more licensing revenue to Riley’s coffers.

Interestingly, Riley’s first registration for THREE-PEAT, the ’980 Registration discussed above, was cancelled in 2008 because he failed to file an acceptable declaration under Section 8 of the Trademark Act. Additionally, an individual filed a petition to cancel the ’980 Registration in 2001, arguing that the mark did not serve as a trademark and had become generic.[5] Holding that the petitioner failed to show that the mark did not function as a trademark or that the mark was generic, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) noted that a type of athletic accomplishment in itself (i.e., winning three consecutive championships) did not necessarily indicate that the term “conveys any meaning, let alone a generic meaning, about [Riley’s] goods.” Pet. Cancel, p. 9. Additionally, the TTAB stated that the placement of Riley’s THREE-PEAT mark on t-shirts was consistent with how trademarks are generally used as a source identifier. Id. Last, the TTAB said that as long as Riley controls the nature and quality of his licensees’ goods, “the mark does not have to indicate a single physical source of the goods, but may also indicate a single, i.e., consistent, source of quality, regardless of the actual physical source or producer of the goods.” Id at 10.

While Riley’s most recent THREEPEAT mark, Reg. No. 4,051.757, was filed in 2010 under Section 2(f), there remains the question whether the mark has now become generic for the feat of winning three consecutive championships. While the petition to cancel the mark was unsuccessful in 2001, a mark can become generic over time. With more teams winning consecutive championships, and with more individuals invariably using the mark in a descriptive or generic manner for winning three consecutive championships, time will tell whether someone will contest the marks validity in the future and what will be the ultimate result.

With that said, Riley’s ability to monetize a mark that only has value when a series of exceptional events occurs in the future proves that patience really can pay off. While it may look like California Chrome’s owners’ gaze is affixed on the finish line on June 7, their foresight to file a trademark application last week demonstrates that their vision for both California Chrome and CALIFORNIA CHROME really starts when the race is over.

*          *          *

Paul A. Borovay is an associate with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois.  Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues.   Paul’s practice focuses on litigation in trademark, media, online gaming and entertainment, advertising, as well as trademark prosecution and counseling.

 

[1] ESPN.com reports that the horse was bred for $10,500 and has now won $3.45 million on the track. See http://espn.go.com/horse-racing/triplecrown2014/story/_/id/10957336/california-chrome-owners-file-trademark-horse-name

[2] Id.

[3] As reported on this blog only July 25, 2012, there is some debate as to whether Riley or ex-Los Angeles Lake Byron Scott coined the term THREE-PEAT. Nevertheless, Riley owns the rights to the mark. See http://blog.pattishall.com/2012/07/25/who-owns-a-trademark-jeremy-lin-wins-linsanity-as-anthony-davis-fights-for-his-unibrow/

[4] http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9360787/miami-heat-owner-pat-riley-had-foresight-patent-three-peat-not-three-heat-espn-magazine

[5] Christopher Wade, Pet. Cancel No. 21,869, 2001 WL 1028372 (Trademark Tr. & App. Bd. Sept. 6, 2001).

For a printer-friendly version, click here.

May 6, 2014

Doing Your Due Diligence Before Picking A Name

Filed under: Due Diligence, TM Registration — Tags: , , , , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 3:04 pm

Paul Borovay F LRBy Paul A. Borovay, Associate

Entrepreneur Magazine recently published an article about things to consider before naming your business.[1] It is a good (and short) read for anyone considering starting a company, or even for those individuals who have a company and are thinking about rebranding it under a new name or concept.

To start, consider what makes a company name so important: it must be unique, easy to spell, and nowadays, ideally, play nice with Google’s, Yahoo’s, and Bing’s be-all and end-all algorithms, among other necessaries. As the Entrepreneur article points out, several names, like Apple, Snapple, Oreo and Virgin, are fun to say and easy to spell – and they stick in consumers’ minds.

But the article fails to mention one important aspect about the “picking a name process:” entrepreneurs must do their due diligence before investing time and money in a name.[2] There is nothing worse than getting excited about the perfect name only to be sued for infringing someone else’s trademark after launch.

There are several ways to avoid this scenario. A good start is to check the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website to see whether someone else is already using your name. The USPTO provides for both word and design mark searches. Next, conduct your own internet search. If you get several results with a name that is similar to your proposed name but covers different goods or services, you might be okay. Trademark attorneys focus on these types of risk analyses.

One of the most popular services trademark attorneys offer are clearance opinions. First, the attorney will conduct a clearance search for your proposed mark. A clearance search may be obtained from a professional search vendor and reviewed by the attorney. The professional search vendors offer the broadest coverage, including reviewing federal and state trademark registrations, business names across the country (or world if you would consider selling your goods or services abroad), similar internet and domain name references, and variations and colorable imitations of your proposed name revealed through their own proprietary databases.[3] These searches are far more comprehensive than anything you or I could do on our own. They are not cheap, but they really show just how unique and protectable your name might be. Following the search, a trademark attorney will provide you an opinion assessing whether the mark is available for use, as well as your likelihood of getting a state or federal registration.

If you plan to operate your business internationally, securing the advice of a trademark attorney is definitely the way to go, as different countries have very different trademark systems. If you don’t secure trademark rights in the countries where you want to do business, someone else might easily register your name there, and there might not be anything you could do about it.

Once you do secure your perfect company name, you should consider retaining a watch service. As the name suggests, a watch service watches federal and state trademark registrars for similar trademark applications. Getting an early start to protecting the brand you have spent so much time and money developing is imperative and will help keep the scope of your rights in your name as broad as possible.

*          *          *

Paul A. Borovay is an associate with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois.  Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues.   Paul’s practice focuses on litigation in trademark, media, online gaming and entertainment, advertising, as well as trademark prosecution and counseling.

 

[1] As a complete disclosure, neither I nor this law firm has any connection to Entrepreneur Magazine – though I do own a subscription.

[2] An Entrepreneur Magazine article published on April 8, 2011, titled How Can I Find Out Whether a Business Name Is Already Taken? did discuss the importance of trademark searches.

[3] For example, would you think to search for the term “Fit You” if you were conducting your own trademark clearance search for your proposed new company name “U Fit”? Maybe, but maybe not. See You Fit, Inc. v. Pleasanton Fitness, LLC, 8:12-CV-1917-T-27EAJ, 2013 WL 521784 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2013).

For a printer-friendly version, click here.

May 2, 2014

Defend Trade Secrets Act Would Create Federal Private Right-of-Action For Trade Secret Misappropriation Under Economic Espionage Act

Filed under: Trade Secret — Tags: , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 10:59 am

PB LR

 

by Phillip Barengolts, Partner

 

On April 29, Senators Orrin Hatch and Chris Coons introduced the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which would create a federal private right-of-action under Economic Espionage Act.

Currently, claims for trade secret misappropriation generally are brought in state courts regardless of the scope of the misappropriation. The resulting state-by-state protection can create problems for trade secret owners in developing global non-disclosure policies required to maintain protection for these extraordinarily valuable assets, which include secret formulas, customer lists, manufacturing techniques, business processes, advertising strategies and sales methods.

The Defend Trade Secrets Act would amend the Economic Espionage Act to provide an owner of a trade secret with significant remedies for misappropriation, including:

  • the ability to obtain an ex parte order to: a) copy electronically stored information from the alleged thief to preserve evidence of the misappropriation; and b) seize “any property used, in any manner…to commit or facilitate the” misappropriation;
  • injunctions to protect the trade secret;
  • damages for actual losses plus unjust enrichment to the extent not compensated by the award of actual losses, or a reasonable royalty in lieu of damages; and
  • if the misappropriation is willful or malicious, exemplary damages of no more than 3 times the actual damages or reasonable royalty awarded.

The requirements for the seizure order will follow those under the Lanham Act.

If the Defend Trade Secrets Act ultimately becomes law, it would provide businesses with a significant tool to protect their valuable intellectual property. Given the bipartisan support, it stands a good chance. In the meantime, companies seeking to protect their trade secrets will continue to rely upon the state-by-state protection currently in place.

*          *          *

Phillip Barengolts is a partner with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, trade secret and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues. Mr. Barengolts’ practice focuses on litigation, transactions, and counseling in domestic and international trademark, trade dress, unfair competition, trade secret, Internet, and copyright law. He teaches trademark and copyright litigation at John Marshall Law School, and co-authored Trademark and Copyright Litigation, published by Lexis Publishing.

For a printer-friendly version, click here.

April 29, 2014

Performance of Magic Trick Protected Under Copyright Law, Nevada District Court Holds

Filed under: Copyright, Litigation — Tags: , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 11:03 am

SIA-LRBy: Seth I. Appel, Associate

A renowned illusionist has achieved a very real victory in court. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada held that Teller’s performance of his Shadows magic trick is protected under copyright law, even though the magic trick itself is not. Teller v. Dogge, 110 USPQ2d 1302 (D. Nev. 2014).[1]

Teller – a well-known magician, best known as half of Penn & Teller – has performed Shadows for over three decades. This illusion involves a spotlight pointed at a vase containing a rose, projecting a shadow onto a screen as shown below:

Magic Trick-Teller Blog Post

Teller, wielding a large knife, slowly cuts the leaves and petals of the rose’s shadow on the screen. Meanwhile, the corresponding leaves and petals of the real rose fall to the ground.

Teller brought a lawsuit against Gerard Dogge, a Dutch performer who uploaded to YouTube two videos of himself performing a similar illusion, entitled The Rose and Her Shadow.

Dogge’s caption for the videos stated: “I’ve seen the great Penn & Teller performing a similar trick and now I’m very happy to share my version in a different and more impossible way with you.” Dogge admitted that he posted the videos in an attempt to sell the illusion’s secret.

The court last month court granted Teller’s motion for summary judgment on his copyright infringement claim, holding that Teller’s performance of Shadows is subject to copyright protection. While magic tricks are not protected under copyright law, the court explained, the Copyright Act protects “dramatic works” and “pantomimes.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). “The mere fact that a dramatic work or pantomime includes a magic trick, or even that a particular illusion is its central feature does not render it devoid of copyright protection,” the court found.

The court rejected Dogge’s argument that Teller had waived his copyright because his partner, Penn Jillette, had issued a challenge of sorts, publicly stating that “no one will ever figure out” Shadows. This statement, the court observed, “merely provokes others to unearth the secret, not perform the work.” And for copyright purposes, the secret behind the trick is insignificant: “the performance it is used for is everything.”

Having determined that Teller’s illusion merited copyright protection, the court had no trouble finding infringement. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s two-part analysis – an “extrinsic test” and an “intrinsic test” – the court found that Teller’s Shadows and Dogge’s The Rose and Her Shadow were substantially similar.

The court noted that the two parties’ illusions were “nearly identical twins,” even though their secrets may have been different.

In discerning substantial similarity, the court compares only the observable elements of the works in question. Therefore, whether Dogge uses Teller’s method, a technique known only by various holy men of the Himalayas, or even real magic is irrelevant, as the performances appear identical to an ordinary observer.

Last week the court set trial for June 2, 2014, to determine whether Dogge committed willful infringement and to decide Teller’s unfair competition claim.

In its summary judgment order, the court noted that the magic community has traditionally blackballed performers who reveal other magicians’ secrets. This case confirms that wronged magicians also may have another avenue for relief, in federal court.

*     *     *

Seth I. Appel is an associate attorney at Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois.  Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues.  Mr. Appel’s practice focuses on litigation, transactions, and counseling with respect to trademark, trade dress, copyright and Internet law.

————————-

[1]http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12052870780115350990&q=teller+v+dogge&hl=en&as_sdt=400006.

 

For a printer-friendly version, click here.

 

March 25, 2014

Lexmark Case Decided – U.S. Supreme Court Creates New Standard for False Advertising Claims

Filed under: Advertising, Trademark (General) — Tags: , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 5:45 pm

Widmaier_Uli_1 F LRBy: Uli Widmaier

In Lexmark Int’l, Inc., v. Static Control Components, Inc., No. 12-873 (March 25, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a party alleging false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a), must show “an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business reputation proximately caused by the defendant’s misrepresentations.”

This holding creates a new standard for false advertising claims and invalidates familiar legal doctrine.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE
Lexmark, the defendant in this lawsuit, manufactures laser printers and sells toner cartridges for these printers. Static Control, the plaintiff, makes components for remanufacturers of Lexmark printer cartridges.
Static Control had alleged “lost sales and damage to its business reputation” as a direct result of Lexmark’s false, misleading, and derogatory statements about Static Control and its clients, the remanufacturers of Lexmark toner cartridges.

THE LAW PRIOR TO LEXMARK
U.S. courts had long used “three competing approaches to determining whether a plaintiff has standing to sue [for false advertising] under the Lanham Act.” A plaintiff who did not have the requisite standing could not bring a false advertising claim.

The Supreme Court rejected each of these tests. They are no longer valid law.

THE NEW LAW
In Lexmark, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff’s ability to sue for false advertising is no longer a question of “standing.”

Rather, it “presents a straightforward question of statutory interpretation: Does the cause of action in Sec. 1125(a) extend to plaintiffs like Static Control?” Put another way, the question is “whether Static Control falls within the class of plaintiffs whom Congress has authorized to sue under Sec. 1125(a).”‘

The courts must answer this question by considering two factors: (a) the zone of interests protected by the law invoked, and (b) proximate cause.

(a)    Zone of Interests – For the zone of interests inquiry, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff must allege and prove “an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales.”

This requirement is not met by “a consumer who is hoodwinked into purchasing a disappointing product,” or by “a business misled by a supplier into purchasing an inferior product.”

(b)    Proximate Cause – For the proximate cause inquiry, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff must allege and prove “economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the deception wrought by the defendant’s advertising; and that occurs when deception of consumers causes them to withhold trade from the plaintiff.”

This requirement is not met “when the deception produces injuries to a fellow commercial actor that in turn affect the plaintiff.”

APPLYING THE NEW LAW TO STATIC CONTROL’S FALSE ADVERTISING CLAIM

(a)    Zone of Interests – Static Control alleged that its “position in the marketplace has been damaged by Lexmark’s false advertising.” Therefore, the Supreme Court held, Static Control is “within the zone of interests” protected by Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

(b)    Proximate Cause – Static Control also satisfied the proximate cause requirement because it alleged “that Lexmark disparaged its business and products by asserting that Static Control’s business was illegal.” As the Supreme Court explained, “when a party claims reputational injury from disparagement, competition is not required for proximate cause; and that is true even if the defendant’s aim was to harm its immediate competitors, and the plaintiff merely suffered collateral damage.”

In addition, Static Control’s specific business model supported a finding of proximate cause. Static Control’s products “both (1) were necessary for, and (2) had no other use than, refurbishing Lexmark toner cartridges.” Therefore, any false advertising directed at remanufacturers of Lexmark toner cartridges “necessarily injured Static Control as well.”

The Supreme Court noted that its approval of Static Control’s false advertising claim extends only to Static Control’s allegations. Static Control still has to prove both the zones of interest element and the proximate cause element of its Section 43(a) claim with factual evidence.

EDWARD S. ROGERS AND THE MEANING OF “UNFAIR COMPETITION”
The term “unfair competition” does not mean that the plaintiff and the defendants must actually be competitors.

To drive home that oft-misunderstood point, the Supreme Court quoted a 1929 (!) article in the Yale Law Journal by the drafter of the Lanham Act and former name partner of the Pattishall law firm, Edward S. Rogers. Rogers – whom the Supreme Court calls a “leading authority in the field” – put the matter memorably: “There need be no competition in unfair competition, just as there is no soda in soda water, no grapes in grape fruit, no bread in bread fruit, and a clothes horse is not a horse but is good enough to hang things on.”

In other words, it is a mistake, explained the Supreme Court, “to infer that because the Lanham Act treats false advertising as a form of unfair competition, it can protect only the false-advertiser’s direct competitors.”

*     *     *

Uli Widmaier is a partner with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, and unfair competition trials and appeals. The firm advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues. Uli’s practice focuses on domestic and international trademark, copyright, trade dress and Internet law and litigation.

For a printer-friendly version, click here.

February 7, 2014

Utilitarian Shape of Hookah Not Subject to Copyright Protection, Even if Distinctive, Ninth Circuit Holds

Filed under: Copyright, Litigation — Tags: , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 3:27 pm

SIA-LRBy: Seth I. Appel, Associate

Inhale Inc.’s efforts to protect the shape of its hookah under copyright law went up in smoke, as the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc.  Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc., 739 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2014).[1]

Inhale, a designer and manufacturer of smoking products, sold the hookah[2] shown below:

Hooka

It obtained a U.S. copyright registration for this product.

Inhale sued Starbuzz for copyright infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Starbuzz sold a similar hookah.  Inhale’s claim was based entirely on the shape of Starbuzz’s hookah.  For purposes of the lawsuit, Inhale disclaimed copyright protection to the skull-and-crossbones graphic.

The district court granted Starbuzz’s motion for summary judgment in 2012, holding that Inhale did not own a valid copyright in the shape of its hookah, notwithstanding its registration.  Last month the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Copyright Act generally protects “original works of authorship,” including sculptural works.  But it does not protect “useful articles.”  Under the Copyright Act, a “useful article” is “an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information.”  17 U.S.C. § 101.

Individual design elements of a useful article may be subject to copyright protection, to the extent that they “can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.”  17 U.S.C. 101.  Such protectable elements may be either physically separable or conceptually separable.

Inhale argued that the shape of its hookah was conceptually separable from its utilitarian features, but the Ninth Circuit disagreed.  It explained:  “The shape of a container is not independent of the container’s utilitarian function—to hold the contents within its shape—because the shape accomplishes the function.”  739 F.3d at 449.

The court, citing Copyright Office practice, rejected Inhale’s contention that the distinctiveness of the hookah shape affected the separability analysis.  The court observed:

Although Inhale’s water container, like a piece of modern sculpture, has a distinctive shape, “the shape of the alleged ‘artistic features’ and of the useful article are one and the same.”

739 F.3d at 449 (quoting Compendium of Copyright Office Practices II, § 505.03).

The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Starbuzz under 17 U.S.C. § 505, and further awarded Starbuzz its attorneys’ fees on appeal.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision is a blow to producers of creative works that have utilitarian functions, including other sculptural works such as bottles and vases.  In view of this decision, it may be harder for such entities to address copying by competitors – at least under copyright law.

*     *     *

Seth I. Appel is an associate attorney at Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois.  Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues.  Mr. Appel’s practice focuses on litigation, transactions, and counseling with respect to trademark, trade dress, copyright and Internet law.


[1] http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=621471655821174883

[2]A hookah is a device for smoking tobacco, in which the smoke passes through a water basin, which filters and cools the smoke before it is inhaled by the user.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah.

For a printer-friendly version, click here.

January 17, 2014

CrossFit Cybersquatter Gets Dealt Multiple Blows

Filed under: Cybersquatting, Domain Name, TM Registration — Tags: , , , , , , , — Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP @ 2:52 pm

Paul Borovay F LRBy Paul A. Borovay, Associate

In CrossFit, Inc. v. Results Plus Personal Training Inc, the panel held that an unsubstantiated “consent to transfer” will not avoid an adverse ruling.  National Arbitration Claim Number: FA1305001498576 (June 28, 2013).  The domain names at issue were <crossfitagawam.com>, <crossfitansonia.com>, <crossfitbeaconfalls.com>, and many other “crossfit”-derivative .com domain names referring to different cities across the United States.

CrossFit, Inc. provided workout and gym products and services.  Its revenue mainly came from licensing its registered CROSSFIT marks and programs to affiliate gyms around the country.  Typically the affiliate would register a “crossfit” domain name that included a geographic designator, e.g., crossfitboston.com.  The Respondent, Results Plus Personal Training Inc., was a competitor of Crossfit.  It registered 113 domain names, most of which “do nothing but add the name of a famous or popular city [to] the CrossFit mark.”  Most were used for parked web pages, often with advertising hyperlinks for Respondent and other competitors.  The panel found that Respondent registered that large amount of domain names “to resell them exclusively to Complainant and its affiliates.”  It was a “bad faith endeavor to confuse Internet users into believing Complainant or its CrossFit mark is at the source of the content, all so Respondent can advance its goals to generate revenue.”

Results Plus argued that GoDaddy.com led it to believe that it could legally register and use these domain names in the manner that it did.  Although CrossFit had filed a federal court action seeking $9 million in damages, the Panel determined that it retained authority to proceed to decision.  To avoid an adverse ruling, Results Plus offered to transfer the domain names to Crossfit on the condition that Crossfit pay Results Plus $1,300, which Results Plus argued was “far less” than it had spent maintaining the 113 domain names.

The Panel observed that an effective consent to transfer does not ordinarily arise when the transfer is subject to the condition precedent of a markholder’s payment of fees. The Panel found that Complainant has not implicitly consented in its Complaint to the transfer of the disputed domain names without a decision on the merits by the Panel.  The Panel observed that this “consent-to-transfer” approach was one way cybersquatters tried to avoid adverse holdings, but it normally was ineffective, especially when the alleged “consent” required the transfer of money to the respondent.  The Panel ultimately found that Results Plus did not have any legitimate interest in the disputed domain names and had acted in bad faith, and ordered the domain names transferred to Cross Fit.

This case highlights that trademark owners can bring an action to transfer  multiple infringing domain names from a single cybersquatter under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (commonly referred to as “UDRP”).  The UDRP sets forth the grounds on which arbitrators base their decisions, but there are several different dispute resolution forums from which to choose, all with their own local rules, procedures and leanings.  While I do not practice CrossFit myself, I know a good 1-2 punch when I see one – and, for now, Results Plus is down for the count.

*          *          *

Paul A. Borovay is an associate with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois.  Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues.   Paul’s practice focuses on litigation in trademark, media, online gaming and entertainment, advertising, as well as trademark prosecution and counseling.

Click here for a printer-friendly version.

Older Posts »

The Silver is the New Black Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 78 other followers