Wednesday, August 15, 2012
ICANN Must Face Antitrust Scrutiny for Approving .XXX Top Level Domain
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Craig Sues James (But Not Angie) for a "List"
Craigslist, the popular free website, has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the Swedish owners of Jameslist.
Craigslist offers users job postings, apartments, and all manner of items for sale (and sometimes even for free).
In contrast, Jameslist offers only absurdly high-end luxury real estate and items for sale, such as ninety million dollar mansions, private jets, yachts, sports cars and other accouterments of the wealthy and uber-famous. It bills itself as "the World's Luxury Marketplace."
The federal lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco where Craigslist is headquartered, alleges that Jameslist was coined as an admitted play on words to bring Craigslist to mind. The suit alleges that consumers will be confused.
Some commentators have pondered why, given Craigslist's apparent concern about confusion arising from the use of a first name and "list," it has never sued Angie Hicks, the founder of Angie's List, which offers reviews of roofers, plumbers, housekeepers and contractors.
The lawsuit notes that there had been a previous administrative proceeding when James had sought U.S. trademark recognition, but that proceeding ended with the entry of judgment against Jameslist.
Can you guess which items appear on Craigslist or Jameslist, respectively, by just looking at the pictures below? Answers appear at the bottom.
#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
#4 |
#5 |
#6 |
#1: $72,000,000 Yacht for sale on Jameslist.
#2: $130/month shared room for rent on the Bronx on Craigslist.
#3: FREE keyboard on Craigslist.
#4: $90,000,000 Woolworth Mansion for sale on Jameslist.
#5: Aston Martin for sale for $250,000 on Jameslist.
#6: Goodyear tires (slightly used) for sale for $150 on Craigslist.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
FBI Now Permits Use of Government Seal by All Copyright Owners
The
official Anti-Piracy Warning (APW) Seal, seen above, has been approved by the U.S.
Attorney General as an official insignia of the FBI and the U.S. Department of
Justice.
Previously,
use of the Anti-Piracy Warning Seal previously was limited to entertainment and
software industry associations that had entered into written agreements with
the FBI. It became an ubiquitous symbol at the beginning of movies on VHS and DVD's.
However,
as of this Monday, any copyright holder from any sector, regardless of membership in
a formal association, can obtain the
seal by checking off a box to confirm consent with a list of
prohibitions and conditions. The terms of use cite, among other things, that
holders cannot animate or alter the emblem, or use it on child pornography.
The seal
is part of a public awareness campaign to remind consumers they are subject to
fines or jail time for intellectual property infringement. Copyrighted works
include films, audio recordings, electronic media, software, books and
photographs.
The
symbol does not provide greater legal protections for owners or signal
additional penalties for violators.
Rather, the official insignia “simply serves as a widely recognizable reminder of the FBI’s
authority and mission with respect to the protection of intellectual property
rights,” bureau officials said in a statement.
Lawful
use requires the below authorized text to be placed immediately adjacent
to Seal on the copyrighted work:
The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by fines and federal imprisonment.
Internet Scammers Target Sophisticated Law Firms
A
creative and sophisticated Internet scam has targeted sophisticated law firms.
Indeed,
the Gioconda Law Group PLLC was targeted by this type of scam artist, but
(thankfully) we were able to recognize it very quickly.
It works
like this: A potential foreign client that appears to be legitimate will
send an unsolicited e-mail inquiry seeking legal assistance in collecting a
relatively modest commercial debt that it claims is owed to them.
For
example, a Taiwanese company that supplies parts and equipment to electronics
vendors will contact a New York law firm, claiming that it sold $1.2M worth of
goods to a New York-based electronics business.
The company will provide a variety of written documentation to the law
firm that appears totally legitimate, including signed contracts, supply agreements,
purchase orders and invoices.
The
company will gladly sign a formal lawyer's engagement letter and agree to pay the
lawyer for his time and effort in seeking to collect on the debt.
The
company will eventually send an e-mail to the lawyer saying, "Great news!
The debtor has agreed to pay for the goods and send you the settlement check for processing.
Please deduct your fee and send us the remainder by international wire transfer."
If the
lawyer doesn't catch on by then, he may indeed deposit the settlement check, and wire the
funds to the company.
However,
the check he deposits is counterfeit, and the law firm is left holding the bag for the
missing funds that it wired to the foreign company from its trust account.
Sound
implausible?
Some of the biggest law firms in the country have been
suckered into writing trust account checks or wiring money to bank accounts
based on funds they thought had cleared their trust accounts, only to later
learn that the check deposited with the law firm was a forgery. The result is
that the law firm ends up on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars, while
the recipient of the money has disappeared.
Minnesota
law firm Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz (MGM)
fell victim to such a fraud three years ago. Founding partner Robert Milavetz
says that when MGM got an email from a 40-year old Korean woman seeking to
collect a $400,000 judgment owed her for an accident, the firm thought nothing
of it: "We do this kind of thing every day," he says. "We help
people get settlements. That's what lawyers do."
In one recent case, a pair of foreign nationals are
facing criminal charges for allegedly having duped 70 U.S. lawyers and law
firms out of $29M and of having tried to make off with another $100M from 300
more.
Lawyers must implement and consistently utilize a high level of due diligence when taking on new clients, especially ones that are self-introduced through online channels.
Ask for tax returns or other official documentation demonstrating that the client has been a solvent business for at least the previous two or three years. Ask for professional references or other credentials, and don't let your zeal to take on a new matter cloud your judgment.
The moral of the story is, if the deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Ask for tax returns or other official documentation demonstrating that the client has been a solvent business for at least the previous two or three years. Ask for professional references or other credentials, and don't let your zeal to take on a new matter cloud your judgment.
The moral of the story is, if the deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Is Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan Pro-Techie?
Congressman Ryan with President Barack Obama |
Mostly, Ryan's views are in line with the current Administration, according to TechCrunch, which declares that he has "(mostly) been a friend to technology."
Interestingly, Ryan switched his views on the Stop Online Piracy Act ("SOPA"), going from supporting it to opposing it midstream, reportedly after Reddit waged a campaign to get him to change his vote. Ryan seems to oppose Net Neutrality, at least according to Wired.
Overall, it would seem to be a consensus that he is a pro-techie VP candidate, which is in contrast with the current Vice President, who has more in common with the content creator/Hollywood community than the techie crowd.
Unofficial 9/11 Memorials Come Under Fire from FDNY Trademark Lawyers
Source: Remembrance Rescue Project Website |
In July 2011, a group of firefighters purchased former Rescue Truck Number 3 from the City of New York, when it was going to be scrapped. The firefighters were able to use parts from Rescue Trucks Numbers 4 and 5 to restore them to working condition. The trucks became part of the "Remembrance Rescue Project."
The Project's website claims to be an educational, not for profit effort focused on educating and memorializing September 11. The Project's application for tax-exempt status from the IRS under Section 501(c)(3) is currently pending.
The domain name www.Remembrance.co is currently registered to Christopher Gantz of "Strike the Box Enterprises" in Schaumberg, Illinois, whose e-mail address is apparently cgantz@firezonefun.com.
FireZoneFun.com offers children's amusement-park type "rent a fire truck" services for birthday and block parties.
The domain name www.Remembrance.co is currently registered to Christopher Gantz of "Strike the Box Enterprises" in Schaumberg, Illinois, whose e-mail address is apparently cgantz@firezonefun.com.
FireZoneFun.com offers children's amusement-park type "rent a fire truck" services for birthday and block parties.
The so-called "mobile memorials" that travel across America are not an official FDNY-sanctioned operation, and the trucks are operated by firefighters across the country who purportedly volunteer their time.
However, FDNY lawyers and others have raised questions about the ongoing usage of the official New York City Fire Department logos on the Project's refurbished trucks, after multiple cease and desist letters were sent to the Project's management.
Source: Remembrance Rescue Project Website |
There have also been questions about the lack of involvement by active or retired FDNY members with the Project, but the Project claims that it has repeatedly tried to obtain assistance from the FDNY, as well as from family members of the fallen firefighters, but hasn't received any support.
As for the logos, the Project claims that it is currently redesigning them to steer clear of the NYFD's registered trademarks.
What is the IKEA Trademark Worth? Alot.
What is
Swedish-furniture maker IKEA's trademark worth?
The official price in 2012 is 9 billion euros, or 11.1 billion dollars.
That's
how much the trademark was valued during a recent transaction where it was
assigned to one of IKEA's subsidiaries.
Ikea is a
family-owned company and was founded in 1943 by Ingvar Kamprad. At the
age of 86, Kamprad is still actively involved in the business.
Believe
it or not, IKEA is not the most valuable brand in Sweden.
The
clothing retailer Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) ranks first with its trademark
estimated at 15 billion euros, or 18.5 billion dollars.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Cuties Suppliers Embroiled in Legal Battle Over Name
A dispute involving the beloved Cuties-brand of California clementines
has escalated into trademark litigation over millions of dollars and who can control the name.
The
seedless, high-quality, easy-to-peel fruit is an incredibly-successful
product.
California Cutie consists of two
varieties of mandarins: Clementine Mandarins and W. Murcott Mandarins.
Contrary to popular belief, Cuties are not just “little oranges.”
Berne
Evans, the owner of Pasadena, California-based company Sun Pacific, and Stewart
Resnick, owner of Delano, California-based Paramount, began collaborating in
the late 1990's. They agreed in 1999 to grow, pack, market and sell
clementines. They coined the name "CUTIES" for the product they jointly developed in 2001.
In 2004,
the two companies harvested the first major crop of Cuties. By 2011-2012,
Cuties' volume had grown to 75 million boxes of fruit.
However, Paramount and Sun Pacific now claim each owes the other
millions of dollars, and a legal battle involving who has the right to sell Cuties juice has
landed the parties in arbitration.
Previously-filed public court documents show that Paramount
wants $60 million from Sun Pacific and Sun Pacific wants $18 million from
Paramount.
Fortunately for the public,
according to the parties, no impact on supply is expected.
Friday, August 10, 2012
The North Face Kicks Butt...Face
The North Face has asked a federal judge to hold the owners of "The South Butt" in contempt of court.
The North Face had sued James "Jimmy" Winkelmann and the South Butt LLC in 2009, alleging trademark infringement from the use of "THE SOUTH BUTT." The defendants claimed it was merely a parody, but the Defendants consented to a Permanent Injunction in 2010 barring them from using any of the South Butt marks.
The North Face now claims that only two days later, the now-enjoined Defendants formed a new company called Why Climb Mountains LLC, and came out with a new clothing line -- THE BUTT FACE.
North Face Apparel cites a consumer survey that it conducted, showing that more than 1 out of 3 people perceive the North Face as being associated with the Butt Face mark.
North Face Apparel is seeking sanctions including damages and attorneys' fees.
The case raises several interesting legal issues. First, when a defendant consents to be permanently enjoined after having been sued, he is under a legal duty to steer clearer of potential infringement than he otherwise would have in the first place.
Therefore, had the South Butt came out with "THE BUTT FACE" initially, it may or may not have been found liable (although given the results of the survey, they probably would have been sued anyway). But the point is that Court Orders have to have meaning or else, where is the finality to litigation?
Further, the parody defense that could have potentially prevailed in the first case, becomes a tougher sell to the Court the second time around, as the defendant's conduct demonstrates its potential for treating the litigation process as a joke, and disrespecting the Court's authority.
Beastie Boys Sue Monster Energy Drink for Copyright Infringement
Wikimedia Commons / Michael Morel |
In a
complaint filed this week in Manhattan federal court, the Beastie Boys accused California-based Monster Beverage of using their music without permission in
several promotional videos for Monster Energy Drink.
The iconic
rap group alleges that its distinctive music was used in a video promoting
Monster Energy Drink's "Ruckus in the Rockies 2012" and that the video text even
uses the group's name as well as the name of the late Adam "MCA"
Yauch.
Yauch’s recently filed
will may play a role in explaining why the band’s surviving
members filed the lawsuit.
Leaving
his $6.4 million estate to his wife and daughter, Yauch explicitly forbid the
commercial license of his music, writing that “in no event may my image or name
or any music or any artistic property created by me be used for advertising
purposes.”
Facebook "Like" Button Not Protected as Free Speech, Federal Court Rules
Be
careful what you "like" on Facebook: The click of that button
is not protected as free speech, one federal judge has ruled.
Bobby Bland and several others were employed as civilian workers
by the Hampton, Virginia Sherriff's Office. The Sheriff, B.J.
Roberts, ran for re-election against Jim Adams, and the plaintiffs were
apparently not in favor of their boss being reelected.
In fact, three of the plaintiffs went so far as to
"like" Adams' Facebook page.
Unfortunately for them, their boss won the election, and he
decided to not retain the plaintiffs as employees of the Sheriff's Office. They sued him for unlawful termination.
The Sheriff justified the firings on cost-cutting and budgeting
grounds, but the plaintiffs argued that the terminations clearly violated
their First Amendment rights. The Court granted Sheriff Roberts’ motion
for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' case.
The judge held that "simply liking a Facebook page"
was not a "substantive statement" that warranted constitutional
protection. The Court said that it would not attempt to "infer the
actual content" of the message from "one click of a button."
The Court wrote that "Facebook posts can be
considered matters of public concern; however, the Court does not believe [it
to be] sufficient speech to garner First Amendment protection." (emphasis
in original).
The ruling raises interesting questions about the odd
"speech vs. conduct" divide.
For example, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, burning an
American flag carries sufficient expressive content to be protected speech.
In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court acknowledged that conduct may be
"sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall
within the scope" of the First Amendment.
In deciding whether particular conduct
possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into
play, the Supreme Court asked whether "an intent to convey a
particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that
the message would be understood by those who viewed it."
The Supreme Court found that, under the
circumstances, "Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct,
permitting him to invoke the First Amendment...Occurring as it did at the end
of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the
expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and
overwhelmingly apparent."
But the intent and message behind giving a Facebook "thumbs up"
to the candidate running against your boss is not overwhelmingly apparent?
It sure seemed pretty apparent to their boss what it meant, but apparently not
to the Court.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
The King of Beers' Fitting Legacy: Brawling Over Budweiser
Budweis Today / Wikimedia Commons / Norbert Aepli |
This
fascinating trademark dispute finds its roots nearly 800 years ago in the
Middle Ages, and it never seems to have ended.
In the quaint European
town of Budweis (or Böhmisch Budweis, today's České Budějovice), a certain form of beer
has been brewed since it was dubbed "Budiwoyz" by King Ottokar II of Bohemia in 1245.
King
Ottokar was originally educated for the role of an ecclesiastical
administrator. However, after the death
in 1247 of Ottokar's older brother and the heir of Bohemia, Ottokar
himself became the heir.
Statue of King Ottokar II |
According
to popular oral tradition, Ottokar was profoundly shocked by his brother's
death and did not involve himself in politics, instead becoming focused on hunting and drinking heavily. Ottokar also founded the town of Königsberg, the namesake of yet another beer. He became, so to speak, the original King of Beers.
Centuries
later, in 1876, Adolphus Busch and his friend Carl Conrad, a liquor
importer, developed a "Bohemian-style" lager, inspired after a trip
to the region, including the now-famous Budweiser. The name Budweiser is
genitive, meaning "of Budweis."
By the end of the 20th Century, American
company Anheuser-Busch and Czech company Budejovicky Budvar Narodni,
had both sold beer in the United Kingdom under the name "Budweiser"
for decades.
In 2000,
the UK Court of Appeals held that both Anheuser-Busch and Budvar were permitted
to register "Budweiser" as a trademark in the UK because there was
"honest concurrent use" of the mark by both companies. That is,
both companies had been simultaneously using the name for a long period of time
without any significant adverse effects on the marketplace.
However
in 2005, Anheuser-Busch applied for an order under Article 4(1)(a) of EU
Directive 89/104 that Budvar's existing registration be rendered invalid and that it be declared the only legitimate source of Budweiser in the United Kingdom. Budvar also apparently declared itself the "original" Budweiser.
The UK
Court of Appeals referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice of the
European Union, including:
"Does Article 4(1)(a) apply so as to enable
the proprietor of an earlier mark to prevail even where there has been a long
period of honest concurrent use of two identical trade marks for identical
goods?" The Court of Justice of the European Union found that the
circumstances of this dispute were so exceptional as to justify concurrent usage by both companies.
The European Court
of Justice said that the proper interpretation of the relevant law means that
the owner of an older trademark cannot obtain a declaration that an identical
later trademark designating identical goods is invalid in circumstances where
there has been a "long period of honest concurrent use of those two trademarks" and that situation has not had (nor is likely to have) an adverse
effect on the essential function of the trademark, which is to guarantee the
origin of the goods. The Court of Justice dismissed the existence of some
documented cases of actual consumer confusion as too marginal to overcome its conclusion.
In the end, it would seem that the original King of Beers' legacy was to encourage a bit of brawling nearly eight centuries after his death.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Mars Landing on YouTube Snarled by Erroneous Copyright Complaints
NASA photo |
Even cutting-edge technology from outer space can get snarled by intellectual property issues.
While NASA's photographs
and videos are freely in the public domain, Motherboard reported that videos of the Mars "Curiousity" rover landing which had been posted by NASA on YouTube were removed for
several hours due to erroneous complaints lodged by Scripps Media under the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DMCA").
Automated
software called "copyright bots" perpetually scour YouTube, looking
for videos that contain content that infringe copyrights.
It is not
yet known why the bots erroneously assumed that the Mars landing rover footage
violated Scripps' copyrights, but it is likely that Scripps had previously
copyrighted similar content.
In any
event, the takedowns raise broader questions about the legal propriety (and
prudence) of using wholly automated bots to make decisions about what content
is likely infringing copyright, and what is not.
Typically, a DMCA-takedown demand
requires that a human being certify under penalty of perjury that he possesses
a good faith belief that a particular use is infringing a copyright. Fair use can also play a role.
However,
because of the sheer volume of material available on the Internet, some content
owners have delegated this delicate task to bots, leading to occasional
problems.
A NASA
spokesman reportedly said that these problems have occurred before, and that
the space agency has tried to work with YouTube to avoid them from recurring, but to no avail.
Fake "ObamaCare" Insurance Cards
According to ScamBook Weekly (video below), counterfeiters are attempting to capitalize on the ongoing consumer confusion about the practical impact of the US Affordable Health Care Act (dubbed "ObamaCare") which was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The fraudsters are apparently contacting individuals by telephone and e-mail and pretending to be government workers asking for social security numbers and credit card information.
They are then offering to sell counterfeit "ObamaCare insurance cards," despite the fact that no such insurance plan exists or is contemplated by the health care law.
The New York Times reports that such scams have already hit individuals in many states. There is likely to be a continuing increase in these scams as we near 2014, when the individual mandate kicks into effect.
Scambook points out that the scammers have no regard for politics, they are just looking for an easy score.
The fraudsters are apparently contacting individuals by telephone and e-mail and pretending to be government workers asking for social security numbers and credit card information.
They are then offering to sell counterfeit "ObamaCare insurance cards," despite the fact that no such insurance plan exists or is contemplated by the health care law.
The New York Times reports that such scams have already hit individuals in many states. There is likely to be a continuing increase in these scams as we near 2014, when the individual mandate kicks into effect.
Scambook points out that the scammers have no regard for politics, they are just looking for an easy score.
US Marine Corps Logo Stripped After Trademark Issue Surfaces
John Brunner, who proudly served in the U.S. Marine Corps
as an Infantry Officer and rose to the rank of Captain, is running for a U.S.
Senate seat in Missouri as a Republican.
Brunner had apparently placed the U.S. Marine Corps logo on the
back of his campaign bus.
However, the Marine Corp's logo is federally registered as a trademark,
and the Corps clearly frowns on the use of the proud logo for unauthorized commercial or political
purposes.
Here is an excerpt from the U.S. Marine Corp's Frequently Asked Questions about its licensing program:
I'm
running for a political office and am a former Marine.
Can I use Marine Corps
trademarks on my campaign materials?
No,
you may not use the official Marine Corps Seal, Eagle, Globe and Anchor (EGA),
or any other USMC insignia or trademark in this manner, since it might create
the impression that your candidacy is endorsed by or affiliated with the USMC
in some way, or that the USMC has chosen your candidacy over other
candidates.
You are more than welcome, to simply and accurately state
that you are a Marine Corps veteran, that's fine, that's a fact.
But
using the EGA which is a trademark of the USMC, and protected by Federal law
(please see 10 USC 7881) is something you may not do.
This is consistent
with the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations which clearly states that the wearing
of the uniform in a political context is strictly prohibited. Please see
Section 11002(1)(a)(2) and (3) of the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations.
The trademark issue had surfaced when local reporters questioned the propriety of Brunner using the logo on his campaign bus under federal laws.
In a statement to local news on Saturday, Brunner's
Press Secretary John Sutter said "The campaign believes that the RV does
not constitute campaign materials, but we will remove the sticker just to be
cautious."
Monday, August 6, 2012
MegaUpload Lawyers Seek Dismissal of Prosecution Case in Virginia
In our blog post on July 7, we declared that the "war to regulate the Internet had only just begun," despite Internet Independence Day celebrations.
On July 20, Kim Dot Com, the founder of MegaUpload who is under house arrest for illegal file sharing in New Zealand, repeated exactly that in a YouTube video.
His defense lawyers have recently filed motions in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, seeking to have the indictments dismissed on the theory that the Defendants could not have been served without a domestic agent representative. Justice Department officials scoffed at the defense's motion, and District Court Judge Liam O'Grady has taken the motion under advisement.
After search warrants issued in New Zealand were dismissed, commentators have begun to question whether the Justice Department's case against Dot Com and MegaUpload will stick.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
German Attaché Maker Sues Marvel Over Avengers' Blu-Ray DVD Box Set
The Avengers Blu-Ray Box Set on Amazon.com |
German luxury attaché case maker Rimowa
claims in a recently-filed federal lawsuit in Los Angeles that the packaging
for the forthcoming Blu-ray box set of the Marvel Entertainment movie Avengers is
an unauthorized knock-off of its Topas attaché case.
The “Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One — Avengers AssembledBox Set” comes in a briefcase that resembles the case used by Nick Fury (played
by Samuel L. Jackson) in the movie.
The German luxury case maker claims that it supplied
Marvel with a genuine attaché for the blockbuster
movie, but did not grant permission to make plastic replicas for the
DVD packaging.
Rimowa
claims the plastic briefcases are cheap knockoffs, and amount to trademark
infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition in a Los
Angeles federal court suit.
According to Marvel’s marketing materials, the Blu-Ray version
of the movie are packaged in a plastic “exclusive replica of Nick Fury’s iconic briefcase.”
The Rimowa Topas attaché |
“Images of the replica briefcase on Marvel’s advertising
materials, and fan video from Marvel’s product display at this year’s ComicCon
convention, show the plastic ‘replica case’ to be a close copy of Rimowa’s
Topas attaché case in every respect but quality — from the proportions and
coloring, to the style of the handle and latches, and, of course, in the use of
the trademarked parallel ridges around the body of the case,” the German
company claims in its lawsuit.
The attaché “was the repository for Nick Fury’s dossiers on the
various superheroes who ultimately constituted the Avengers team,” according to
the the suit.
Amazonis offering the Blu-Ray DVD box set for sale for about $140. The product is
scheduled to be released September 25, 2012.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Lady Gaga Dolls On Hold for the Holidays
Wikimedia Commons / John Robert Charlton |
Lady Gaga (a/k/a Stephanie Germanotta) and her management company were sued by MGA Entertainment Inc., the maker of
Bratz toys, over allegedly failing to approve a line of dolls in the singer’s
likeness.
MGA is asserting claim for breach of contract in New York State Supreme Court, and is seeking more
than $10 million in damages from Lady Gaga, her management company, California-based Atom Factory,
and Los Angeles-based Bravado
International Group, a merchandising company.
MGA
Entertainment alleges that it agreed to produce dolls in Lady
Gaga’s image in December 2011 and paid
the company a $1 million fee in anticipation of shipping the products to
retailers this summer in time for the holiday selling season.
In April of this year,
Bravado Chief Executive Officer Tom Bennett, allegedly told MGA’s chief executive
officer Issac Larian that Lady Gaga wanted
to delay production and shipping of the dolls until her new album is released
in 2013.
MGA claims that the defendants have continued to
withhold final approval in order to delay marketing the dolls until next year
and instead sell a licensed Lady Gaga perfume called “Fame.”
“The Defendants’
conduct is egregious, in bad faith and is pretextual, especially in light of
the fact that MGA has, among other things, paid Bravado a $1,000,000 advance,
agreed to an excessively generous royalty rate, invested millions in the
preproduction of the Lady Gaga dolls and put its reputation and goodwill on the
line in order to secure distributors and retail shelf space,” MGA Entertainment
asserts in the complaint.
Excuse Me...Who Does This "Lost Dog" Belong To?
The
Lost Dog Coffee Shop in Shepherdstown, West Virginia (population 1,734) recently received a formal cease and desist letter from an attorney representing "The Lost Dog Cafe,"
a restaurant located in Arlington, Virginia, sending shockwaves throughout the
small West Virginia town.
Hundreds of town residents have signed an online petition, but the Arlington-based cafe is not backing down from its threats.
On
January 3, 2000, Shepherdstown, West Virginia was the unlikely site of the Peace Talks between Israel and Syria where both
sides were urged to make the hard choices needed to end a half-century of
conflict.
Those negotiations didn't quite work out like everyone had hoped, and it doesn't seem that this
dispute will end anytime soon, either.
The owner of the Lost Dog Coffee Shop has indicated that he has no intention of acquiescing to the Lost Dog Cafe's "trademark bullying."
Someone should remind the parties that there is always a bigger dog on the block: The Lost Dog Cafe located in downtown Binghamton, New York, has a concurrent use right recognized by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office senior to everyone.
Zynga's The Ville Accused of "Blatant Mimicry" by Sims Social Creators
Electronic
Arts ("EA") today announced that it filed a lawsuit
on behalf of its Maxis Label against Zynga for infringing EA's copyrights to its
Facebook game, The Sims Social.
In the Complaint, which was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California today, EA claims that in Zynga's
recently-released Facebook game The Ville, Zynga willfully and intentionally
"copied and misappropriated the original and distinctive expressive
elements of The Sims Social in a violation of U.S. copyright laws."
The Sims Social, launched in August 2011, brought the
distinctive universe of EA's world-renowned franchise, The Sims, to the social
gaming audience on Facebook. An instant hit, The Sims Social rapidly
gained tens of millions of users, and maintains a current user base of several
million active players on Facebook.
Lucy Bradshaw, General Manager of EA's Maxis Label, commented on
the lawsuit in a statement posted to EA's website, www.ea.com:
"As outlined in our complaint, when The Ville was
introduced in June 2012, the infringement of The Sims Social was unmistakable
to those of us at Maxis as well as to players and the industry at large. The
similarities go well beyond any superficial resemblance. Zynga's design
choices, animations, visual arrangements and character motions and actions have
been directly lifted from The Sims Social. The copying was so comprehensive
that the two games are, to an uninitiated observer, largely indistinguishable. Scores
of media and bloggers commented on the blatant mimicry.
"This is a case of principle. Maxis isn't the first studio
to claim that Zynga copied its creative product. But we are the studio that has
the financial and corporate resources to stand up and do something about it.
Infringing a developer's copyright is not an acceptable practice in game
development. By calling Zynga out on this illegal practice, we hope to have a
secondary effect of protecting the rights of other creative studios who don't
have the resources to protect themselves.
"Today,
we hope to be taking a stand that helps the industry protect the value of
original creative works and those that work tirelessly to create them."
Christian Band "Newsboys" Sues "New Boyz" Rappers for Infringement
The Newsboys,
a popular Christian rock band, has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit
against a rising rap duo called the New Boyz.
According
to the Complaint, Earl "Ben J" Benjamin and Dominic
"Legacy" Thomas are using "New Boyz" which is not only
similar to the Christian band's name, but it is also reminiscent of the 1991
Newsboys album, "Boys Will Be Boyz."
The
Complaint alleges that there have "been several instances of actual
confusion among its customers, prospective customers and other outside
observers who mistakenly assume a connection between Plaintiff and Defendant
and the respective music they
offer."
On Tuesday,
the Newsboys announced an extension of their 60-city "God's Not Dead
Tour" through this fall. A video of their music is below.
Frankly, it seems pretty difficult to believe that ordinarily prudent consumers could ever seriously confuse their brand of Christian rock with the rappers, even if they are each performing music, in the broadest possible sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)