Articles Posted in Copyright Infringement

By

JordanPicture02262015-2.png

Portland, Oregon – Copyright attorneys for Jacobus Rentmeester of Westhampton Beach, New York sued for copyright infringement in the District Court of Oregon, Portland Division alleging that Nike, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon infringed Rentmeester’s copyrighted photo of Michael Jordan. This photo, Registration Number VA0001937374, has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Rentmeester, a New York photographer, commenced this litigation against Nike for Nike’s use of the iconic “Jumpman” photo in promoting its Jordan brand. In the lawsuit, Plaintiff Rentmeester contends that Nike directly, contributorily, and vicariously infringed his copyrighted image of Michael Jordan.

Rentmeester claims that he created the “Jordan Photo” for inclusion in a 1984 Olympic edition of Life Magazine, as part of a photo essay that he produced for the magazine. Among the athletes featured in Rentmeester’s photo essay, in addition to Jordan, were Carl Lewis and Greg Louganis.

At issue in this litigation is Rentmeester’s Jordan Photo. Rentmeester contends that he “conceived the central creative elements of the photograph.” These elements included portraying Jordan alone against the sky, “soar[ing] elegantly” and in a modified version of a grand jeté, a ballet jump during in which the person performs the splits in midair. According to the complaint, this type of jump was not typical for Jordan.

Rentmeester states that, after his photo was published, he agreed to accept a fee of $150 from Nike for temporary use of the photo for a “slide presentation only, no layouts or any other duplication.”

Nike later paid Rentmeester $15,000 for a limited license to use a modified work, although Plaintiff states that this agreement was reached only after Nike had already begun infringing use of the work and Rentmeester had complained to Nike of copyright infringement. Rentmeester contends that this license was limited to two years of use, on posters and billboards only, and for use within North America only. Rentmeester alleges that Nike exceeded the terms of that limited license by using the modified image other than on posters or billboards as well as outside North America. He also asserts that Nike’s use of the Jordan Photo constitutes willful copyright infringement as of the expiration of the license in 1987.

In the complaint, filed by copyright lawyers for Plaintiff, the following counts are enumerated:

• First Cause of Action: Copyright Infringement

• Second Cause of Action: Vicarious Copyright Infringement

• Third Cause of Action: Contributory Copyright Infringement

• Fourth Cause of Action: Violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Rentmeester, via his copyright attorneys, asks the court for a judgment of infringement; for an injunction; for impoundment of all infringing works; for actual and statutory damages, including profits attributable to infringement of Rentmeester’s copyright; for punitive damages; for a finding that neither Nike nor any independent infringers can assert copyright protection in any of the infringing works; and for costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

By

picture02162015.pngDelaware – A third member of an international computer hacking ring has pleaded guilty to conspiring to break into computer networks of prominent technology companies to steal more than $100 million in intellectual property and other proprietary data.

Nathan Leroux, 20, of Bowie, Maryland, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit computer intrusions and criminal copyright infringement based on his role in the cyber theft of software and data related to the Xbox One gaming console and Xbox Live online gaming system, and popular games such as the “FIFA” online soccer series; “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3;” and “Gears of War 3.” Leroux has been in custody since attempting to flee into Canada from Buffalo, New York, on June 16, 2014. A sentencing hearing is set before U.S. District Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the District of Delaware on May 14, 2015.

Sanadodeh Nesheiwat, 28, of Washington, New Jersey, and David Pokora, 22, of Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, previously pleaded guilty to the same conspiracy charge on Sept. 30, 2014. They remain in custody pending their sentencing hearings, which are scheduled for April 2015. Pokora’s guilty plea is believed to have been the first conviction of a foreign-based individual for hacking into U.S. businesses to steal trade secret information. Charges against a fourth defendant, Austin Alcala, 19, of McCordsville, Indiana, remain pending.

According to Leroux’s admissions in connection with his guilty plea, he was part of the hacking conspiracy between January 2011 and September 2012. During that period, hacking group members located in the United States and abroad gained unauthorized access to computer networks of various companies, including Microsoft Corporation, Epic Games Inc., Valve Corporation and Zombie Studios. The conspirators accessed and stole unreleased software, software source code, trade secrets, copyrighted and pre-release works, and other confidential and proprietary information. Members of the conspiracy also allegedly stole financial and other sensitive information relating to the companies – but not their customers – and certain employees of such companies.

Specifically, the data theft targeted software development networks containing source code, technical specifications and related information for Microsoft’s then-unreleased Xbox One gaming console, as well as intellectual property and proprietary data related to Xbox Live and games developed for that online gaming system.

Leroux admitted in court that he and others used the stolen intellectual property to build, and attempt to sell, counterfeit versions of the Xbox One console before its public release in November 2013. In July 2013, the FBI intercepted a counterfeit console built by Leroux, which was destined for the Republic of Seychelles.

Leroux also admitted that he developed a software exploit that allowed him and others to generate millions of “coins” for the FIFA soccer games playable on the Xbox Live platform. These coins are the virtual, in-game currency used to build a “FIFA Ultimate Team” in the games. Without the authorization of Electronic Arts, the intellectual property rights holder to the FIFA games, Leroux and others sold bulk quantities of the “FIFA coins” via online black markets.

The value of the intellectual property and other data stolen by the hacking ring, as well as the costs associated with the victims’ responses to the conduct, is estimated to range between $100 million and $200 million. To date, the United States has seized over $620,000 in cash and other proceeds related to the charged conduct.

This case was investigated by the FBI, with assistance from the Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations and Customs and Border Patrol, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The investigation also has been coordinated with the Western Australia Police and the Peel Regional Police of Ontario, Canada.

The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney James Silver of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward J. McAndrew of the District of Delaware.

Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Charles M. Oberly III of the District of Delaware and Special Agent in Charge Stephen E. Vogt of the FBI’s Baltimore Field Office made the announcement.

Continue reading

By

MicrosoftFlag01282015.png

Fort Wayne, Indiana – An Indiana copyright and trademark attorney for Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) of Redmond, Washington sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Ace Recycling, Inc. and Kevin Cawood, both of Fort Wayne, Indiana (collectively, “Defendants”), infringed copyrighted material belonging to Microsoft. Defendants have also been accused of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false description and representation, counterfeiting and unfair competition. Microsoft seeks damages, an accounting, the imposition of a constructive trust upon Defendants’ illegal profits, and injunctive relief.

Microsoft develops, markets, distributes and licenses computer software. Ace Recycling is engaged in the business of advertising, marketing, installing, offering, and distributing computer hardware and software, including the software at issue, which Microsoft contends is unauthorized.

Microsoft’s software products, which have been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office, include Microsoft Windows XP and Microsoft Vista, both of which are operating systems for desktop and computers.

Also at issue are the following trademarks and service marks belonging to Microsoft:

• “MICROSOFT,” Trademark and Service Mark Registration No. 1,200,236, for computer programs and computer programming services;

• “MICROSOFT,” Trademark Registration No. 1,256,083, for computer hardware and software manuals, newsletters, and computer documentation;

• WINDOWS, Trademark Registration No. 1,872,264 for computer programs and manuals sold as a unit; and

• COLORED FLAG DESIGN, Trademark Registration No. 2,744,843, for computer software.

Microsoft contends that Defendants advertised, marketed, installed, offered and distributed unauthorized copies of Microsoft software, despite Microsoft’s claims that their actions infringed Microsoft’s intellectual property rights. Specifically, Microsoft asserts that, in April 2013, Defendants distributed to an investigator refurbished computer systems with unauthorized copies of Windows XP installed on them. In response, in June 2013, Microsoft asked Defendants to cease and desist from making and distributing infringing copies of Microsoft software. Microsoft alleges that, in May 2014, Defendants again distributed to an investigator a refurbished computer system with an unauthorized copy of a Windows operating system – in that case, Windows Vista – on it.

Microsoft contends that these are not isolated incidents but, instead, indicate Defendants’ pattern of acting in reckless disregard of Microsoft’s registered copyrights, trademarks and service marks.

In this Indiana lawsuit, Microsoft’s copyright and trademark attorney makes the following claims:

• Copyright Infringement – 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq.

• Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114

• False Designation Of Origin, False Description And Representation – 15 U.S.C. § 1125 et seq.

• Indiana Common Law Unfair Competition

• For Imposition Of A Constructive Trust Upon Illegal Profits

• Accounting

Microsoft asks for a judgment of copyright infringement; of trademark and service mark infringement; that Defendants have committed and are committing acts of false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, and false or misleading representation against Microsoft, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); that Defendants have engaged in unfair competition in violation of Indiana common law; and that Defendants have otherwise injured the business reputation and business of Microsoft.

Microsoft also asks for the impoundment of all counterfeit and infringing copies of purported Microsoft products; the imposition of a constructive trust upon Defendants’ illegal profits; injunctive relief; damages, including enhanced damages; and costs and attorneys’ fees.

The case was assigned to Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen and Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins in the Northern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00032-JVB-SLC.

Continue reading

By

stockerpicture01232015.png

Hammond, Indiana – Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry of the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, ordered SVT, LLC d/b/a Ultra Foods (“SVT”) to produce a copyrighted training video to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in ongoing gender-discrimination litigation.

In 2010, Tiffany Swagerty was rejected from a position as a night crew stocker at SVT’s Ultra Foods operation in Merrillville, Indiana. She complained to the EEOC contending that SVT’s hiring manager had told her that women that were not usually hired for night positions. The subsequent investigation by the EEOC corroborated Swagerty’s assertions. The EEOC later sued SVT for violations of Title VII seeking injunctive relief and, on behalf of Swagerty and other similarly rejected female applicants, monetary damages.

In this current opinion in the matter of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. SVT, LLC d/b/a Ultra Foods, the court ruled on several discovery disputes between the parties. Among those issues was whether SVT must produce to the EEOC copies of a copyrighted “stocking video” or whether, in order to obtain a copy, the EEOC must bear a portion of the cost of the materials.

Specifically, as part of its discovery requests, the EEOC asked SVT to provide “all documents containing job descriptions for all stocker positions … including hiring criteria, requirements, and responsibilities created.” SVT objected to providing one piece of responsive material – a stocking DVD that was shown to overnight stockers during orientation – on copyright grounds. SVT stated that, while it had made “in-house copies” of the video, it would not be able to produce a copy of the materials to the EEOC and that it would cost $700 for the EEOC to order and purchase a set of the DVDs. Instead of providing the DVD, SVT offered to have counsel for the EEOC either share in the cost of the DVDs or, in the alternative, to view the DVDs at counsel for SVT’s office during the breaks of depositions. EEOC refused this offer and filed a motion to compel the production of the video.

The court was not persuaded that either of SVT’s proposals was sufficient. The court stated instead that SVT had offered an “unclear … explanation of when and how it obtained the original and/or copies of the DVDs, the nature and extent of any copyright that might exist, and what the costs … were expended for.” Consequently, the court granted the EEOC’s motion to compel, holding that SVT had “not met its burden of demonstrating that the cost of this discovery should be shifted” and ordered SVT to produce the copyrighted material to the EEOC without cost to the EEOC.

Continue reading

By

wifipicture01212015.png

As explained in Monday’s blog post, in general a network operator should not be liable for its users’ activity as long as the operator merely acts as a passive conduit for Internet traffic. However, network operators who remain worried about the risk of liability for copyright infringement can consider another option: the safe harbors provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).

In order to foster online expression and commerce, Congress crafted a set of safe harbors from copyright liability to provide “greater certainty to service providers concerning their legal exposure for infringements that may occur in the course of their activities.”

Under the DMCA, “service provider” includes “an entity . . . providing [] connections for digital online communications.” The definition of a service provider is broad, and includes those who do not operate communications equipment themselves. In one case, for example, a federal appeals court held that a payment processor for online content was a DMCA “service provider” even though it didn’t operate the alleged infringer’s Internet connection or transmit any infringing material. Congress also intended that the term cover “subcontractors” of Internet service providers. Arguably, this definition covers the providers of open Wi-Fi, such as municipalities, cafes, and libraries.

Continue reading

By

Open-WiFI-Picture.png

Open networks provide Internet access to the public. Users do not need to subscribe – they simply connect their devices, often over a wireless connection. For instance, the City of San Francisco recently deployed a free, public Wi-Fi network along a three-mile stretch of Market Street. Similarly, the Open Wireless Movement encourages owners of home Wi-Fi hotspots to open their networks to the public.

Operators of open networks may worry that they could be liable if people use their networks to engage in copyright infringement. This blog post generally explains the scope and limits of secondary liability for the acts of users, and additional steps network operators may choose to take to further limit any legal risk.

This post should not be taken as legal advice specific to any individual network operator.

Continue reading

By

sherlockholmespicture.png

Chicago, Illinois – California attorney Leslie S. Klinger, co-editor of multiple collections of annotated works based on Arthur Conan Doyle‘s Sherlock Holmes fiction sued Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd. under the Declaratory Judgment Act in the Northern District of Illinois seeking a declaratory judgment that he may freely use material from those Sherlock Holmes works for which copyright protection has expired. The district court held that Klinger’s use of material that was no longer subject to copyright was permissible. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Arthur Conan Doyle published 56 stories and 4 novels featuring the fictional character Sherlock Holmes. Of these stories, only the final 10, published between 1923 and 1927, are still protected by copyright.

Leslie Klinger, Plaintiff-Appellee, co-edited an anthology called A Study in Sherlock: Stories Inspired by the Sherlock Holmes Canon. Klinger had not sought a license from Doyle’s estate, presuming that one was not necessary, as the copyrights on most of the works in the “canon” had expired. The estate disagreed and demanded that Random House, which had agreed to publish Klinger’s book, pay $5,000 for a copyright license. Random House acquiesced and, in 2011, the anthology was published.

The trouble began when Klinger and his co-editor decided to create a sequel, “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes” and entered into negotiations with Pegasus Books, a publisher. The Doyle estate again demanded a fee for a copyright license and threatened to interfere with distribution of the book if that copyright license fee was not paid, telling Pegasus, “If you proceed instead to bring out Study in Sherlock II [the original title of “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes”] unlicensed, do not expect to see it offered for sale by Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and similar retailers. We work with those compan[ies] routinely to weed out unlicensed uses of Sherlock Holmes from their offerings, and will not hesitate to do so with your book as well.” No threat of a lawsuit for copyright infringement was explicitly made. Pegasus subsequently refused to publish the book unless and until Klinger obtained a copyright license from the Doyle estate.

Instead of purchasing a license, Klinger sued the estate seeking a declaratory judgment that he could freely use any material from the Sherlock Holmes works for which the period of copyright protection had expired.

The district court held in Klinger’s favor. The estate appealed to the Seventh Circuit on two alternative grounds. The estate first contended that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act because there was no “actual case or controversy.” Second, it asserted that a copyright on a “complex” character, whose full complexity is not revealed until a later story, remains protected under copyright law until the later story falls into the public domain.

Circuit Judge Posner, writing for the court, rejected both arguments. The “case or controversy,” necessary for federal jurisdiction was demonstrated by the estate’s “twin threats” of blocking the distribution of the book and the implied threat of a copyright lawsuit against the publisher, Klinger and the book’s co-editor for copyright infringement if the book were published without a license. That such a case or controversy existed was also demonstrated by the fact that Klinger could have sued on a claim of tortious interference with advantageous business relations as a result of the estate’s intimidation of his publisher.

The court then considered the question of “whether copyright protection of a fictional character can be extended beyond the expiration of the copyright on it because the author altered the character in a subsequent work.” The estate urged the court to grant additional copyright protection in its case, arguing that characters such as Sherlock Holmes were “round” and/or “complex” and thus deserving of greater shelter under copyright law than fictional characters that were “flat” and/or “simple.”

The court could find no basis in statute or case law to support the extension of a copyright beyond its expiration. Thus, it affirmed the uncontested matter of copyright protection for the later works – namely, a right to recover for copyright infringement still existed for some portions of the Sherlock Holmes works for which the copyrights had not yet expired. However, that protection was limited to only those elements of the later Sherlock Holmes works that included “incremental additions of originality.” The remainder, the court opined, had passed into the public domain, regardless of the dimensions of the characters portrayed.

Practice Tip: The court was also unpersuaded by the Doyle estate’s argument to extend copyright law on the grounds that failure to do so would diminish authors’ incentives to create. After noting that Arthur Conan Doyle had died 84 years prior, thus rendering the argument inapplicable in the current litigation, the court noted that “extending copyright protection is a two-edged sword from the standpoint of inducing creativity, as it would reduce the incentive of subsequent authors to create derivative works (such as new versions of popular fictional characters like Holmes and Watson) by shrinking the public domain.”

Continue reading

By

SolarDockLightPicture.pngFort Wayne, Indiana – A patent and copyright attorney for Lake Lite Inc. of Laotto, Indiana filed a complaint in the Northern District of Indiana asserting, inter alia, that Universal Forest Products, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan (“UFP”); Universal Consumer Products, Inc., also of Grand Rapids, Michigan (“UCP”); and Maine Ornamental, LLC of Greene, Maine infringed “Solar Dock Light” and “Low Profile Solar LED Lamp,” Patent Nos. D697,246 and 8,845,126, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Lake Lite is in the business of designing and selling dock lights and other related products and accessories in the boating/dock industry. Its product line includes solar-related dock lights.

In April 2012, Lake Lite first began to offer a “Solar Dot” line of products. Lake Lite indicates that UFP inquired about collaborating with Lake Lite to offer the Solar Dot products to UFP’s customers and that, in November 2012, a mutual non-disclosure agreement was entered so that confidential information regarding Lake Lite’s Solar Dot products could be disclosed and the potential collaboration evaluated. The disclosed information included Lake Lite’s copyright applications to now-copyrighted materials, registered as U.S. Copyright Nos. VAu001118627 and VAu001156962.

Lake Lite asserts that, during these negotiations, it made numerous modifications requested by UFP for which it was not compensated. Lake Lite and UFP failed to reach an agreement about licensing terms and discontinued negotiations. Instead, Lake Lite asserts, UFP has now wrongfully begun offering its own “Solar Deck and Dock Lights.”

In this Indiana copyright and patent litigation, Plaintiff Lake Lite’s specific complaints include that Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their manufacture, importing, marketing and sale of their solar deck and dock light products. Lake Lite contends that Defendants’ acts include infringement of Lake Lite’s copyrights and patents, unauthorized use and misappropriation of Lake Lite’s confidential information and trade secrets and violation of the mutual non-disclosure agreement between Lake Lite and UCP.

The complaint, filed by a copyright and patent lawyer for Lake Lite, alleges the following:

• Count One – Copyright Infringement

• Count Two – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. D697,246

• Count Three – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,845,126

• Count Four – Breach of Contract

• Count Five – Breach of Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

• Count Six – Violation of Indiana Uniform Trade Secret Act

• Count Seven – Unjust Enrichment

Lake Lite asks for a judgment of infringement of its copyrights-in-suit, of infringement of its patents-in-suit, that the non-disclosure agreement was violated by Defendants, that Defendants violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in their dealings with Lake Lite regarding the Solar Dot products, that Defendants have misappropriated Lake Lite’s trade secrets and that Defendants have been unjustly enriched.

Lake Lite seeks injunctive relief; damages, including punitive damages; costs and fees, including attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip:

Indiana Code Section 24-2-3-2 defines a trade secret as:

information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

1. derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

2. is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

The four general characteristics of a trade secret are:

1. it is information;

2. that derives independent economic value;

3. that is not generally known, or readily ascertainable by proper means by others who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

4. that is the subject of efforts, reasonable under the circumstances, to maintain its secrecy.

Continue reading

By

ABRO.png

South Bend, Indiana – Indiana copyright attorneys for ABRO Industries, Inc. of South Bend, Indiana sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that 1 New Trade, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland (“New Trade”), Quest Specialty Coatings, LLC of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin (“Quest”), Igor Zorin and Boris Babenchick and Vadim Fishkin, infringed copyright protections associated with ABRO’s carburetor and choke cleaner package, pending U.S. Copyright Application Case No. 1-1845314781, which is currently under review with the U.S. Copyright Office.

ABRO markets and sells various automotive, industrial and consumer products throughout the world. It claims ownership of an extensive portfolio of intellectual property rights in more than 165 countries. ARBO indicates that, since at least 1992, it has continuously sold and distributed a carburetor and choke cleaner, the packaging of which is the subject of this intellectual property lawsuit.

In this copyright litigation, ABRO alleges that New Trade, under the direction and control of Zorin, Babenchik and Fishkin, is unfairly competing with ABRO by obtaining products from an affiliate of an ABRO supplier in the United States and then distributing the products in containers nearly identical to ABRO’s containers used with identical products, in the same markets, and to the same customers.

Defendants Zorin, Babenchick, Fishkin and New Trade are accused of having reproduced ABRO’s packaging work by using “nearly identical” packaging for New Trade’s competing carburetor and choke cleaning product. Defendants Zorin and Babenchick are the principal owners of Defendant New Trade. Defendant Fishkin is New Trade’s general manager. Defendant Quest is accused of supplying the carburetor and choke cleaning product.

In its complaint, filed by Indiana copyright lawyers, ABRO lists the following claims:

• Count I: Copyright Infringement

• Count II: Personal Liability and/or Vicarious Liability for Copyright Infringement -Zorin, Babenchik, and Fishkin

In its complaint, filed by Indiana copyright lawyers, ABRO asks for the following:

A. Judgment on all counts against each of the Defendants individually and jointly and severally and in favor of ABRO;

B. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants, their agents, and all persons who act in concert and participation with them who learn of the injunction through personal service or otherwise:

(1) From further acts of infringement; and

(2) From copying, using, distributing, publishing by any means or creating a derivative work of the Work under 17 U.S.C. §502;

C. An award of actual damages caused by and any profits obtained by Defendants attributable to infringement of the Work pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(b);

D. For infringement of the Work occurring after registration thereof, an award of statutory damages or alternatively actual damages caused by and any profits obtained by Defendants attributable to the infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§504(b) and 504(c);

E. Impoundment and destruction of all products, catalogs, advertisements, promotional materials or other materials in Defendants’ possession, custody or control found to have been made or used in violation of ABRO’s copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §503;

F. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §505; and

G. An award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

Practice Tip:

This is an interesting complaint. Plaintiff makes what, at first glance, appears to be a case of trademark/trade-dress infringement, including allegations such as “intent to capitalize on ABRO’s goodwill and well-known reputation,” which are normally found in a trademark complaint. ABRO also refers in its complaint to its “extensive anti-counterfeiting program throughout the world… [which has] has resulted in countless raids, product seizures, arrests and jail terms for counterfeiters.” Yet this lawsuit is styled as a copyright case.

Copyright law in the United States is founded on the Constitutional goal of “promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts” by providing exclusive rights to creators. Protection by copyright law gives creators incentives to produce new works and distribute them to the public. In doing so, the law strikes a number of important balances in delineating what can be protected and what cannot, determining what uses are permitted without a license, and establishing appropriate enforcement mechanisms to combat piracy.

The law of copyright is generally thought of as affording protection to works that are typically thought of as art – books, paintings, music and the like. Nonetheless, works that are not primarily designed as art, such as elements of product packaging, might still secure protection by registering with the U.S. Copyright Office. A copyright registration, if available, is easier and less expensive to obtain than a registered patent or trademark. The registration remains valid much longer than a patent and does not require use in commerce, as does a trademark.

Copyright protection also provides benefits to a plaintiff when suing for infringement. In many cases, copyright infringement can be proved more easily than others types of infringement. Moreover, the damages available upon proof of infringement include statutory damages, available without a showing of harm, as well as attorneys’ fees, which are available without pleading or proving that the case was “exceptional.”

Continue reading

By

EdiblePicture.png

Fort Wayne, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Edible Arrangements, LLC (“EA”) and Edible Arrangements International, LLC (“EAI”) of Wallingford, Connecticut filed an intellectual property complaint in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark and copyright infringement by Tom Drummond and Edible Creations, LLC (“EC”) of Allen County, Indiana. Defendants are accused of infringing several trademarks (below), which have been issued by the U.S. Trademark Office, as well as a copyrighted work.

Since 1998, EAI has been using the phrase “Edible Arrangements,” together with various related design marks, in connection with various food products. Its products include fruit cut to look like flowers as well as other fruit products. EAI operates a franchise network of over 1,200 independent owner-operated franchise locations throughout the United States and internationally. It sublicenses the trademarks at issue in this Indiana litigation to its franchisees.

The other Plaintiff, EA, owns the following trademarks relating to “Edible” and “Edible Arrangements”:

In August 2013, Defendants Edible Creations and the company’s owner, Tom Drummond, Filed an application for what Plaintiffs content is a mark that is confusingly similar to one or more of EA’s trademarks:

EAPicture3.png

 

In September 2013, Plaintiffs sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that Edible Creations cease using the mark. It later filed an opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) challenging the registration on the grounds of deceptiveness, false suggestion of a connection between Edible Creations and EA, likelihood of confusion, dilution, misdescriptiveness and fraud. Edible Creations did not respond to EA’s opposition and the TTAB entered a default against Edible Creations and refused to register Edible Creations’ mark.In August 2013, Defendants Edible Creations and the company’s owner, Tom Drummond, filed an application for what Plaintiffs contend is a mark that is confusingly similar to one or more of EA’s trademarks:

In this lawsuit, Defendants have been accused of continuing to advertise, promote and sell fruit arrangements in Indiana using the phrase “Edible Creations” and “Edible Creations Creator of Edible Floral Arrangements.” They have also been accused of violating EA’s copyright in a sculpture known as the “Hearts and Berries Fruit Design” by displaying the copyrighted design in print, including on vehicles, and on the internet.

In its complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark and copyright lawyer, Plaintiffs list the following claims:

  • Trademark Infringement
  • False Designation of Origin
  • Trademark Dilution
  • By Blurring
  • By Tarnishment
  • Copyright Infringement
  • Unfair Competition
  • Unfair Competition

Plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Practice Tip:

Allegations of trademark dilution involve a different analysis from claims of trademark infringement. The first type of trademark dilution is dilution by blurring. An allegation of dilution by blurring requires that the plaintiff prove, among other things, that its mark is “famous.” This is not an easy burden, requiring that the mark have “extensive public recognition and renown” within the population of average consumers. There are some marks, such as Chanel, Coke and Microsoft, for which establishing such renown is likely achievable. However, this bar is extremely high. Even trademarks that are very well known, such as Coach, which has been used since 1961 and under which several billion dollars of sales are made annually, have been found to be “not famous” for the purposes of a dilution analysis. Edible Arrangements will have a difficult time proving this claim.

The second type of trademark dilution is dilution by tarnishment. Edible Arrangements will also have a difficult time establishing the elements of this type of trademark dilution. This cause of action is generally brought when the reputation of a well-known mark is harmed by another’s use of that trademark or a similar mark within a sexual context. For example, in Kraft Foods Holdings, Inc. v. Helm, 205 F. Supp. 2d 942, 949-50 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court held that the use of the term “VelVeeda” by a pornographic website tarnished the trademark held by the makers of Velveeta cheese. Courts may also find dilution by tarnishment where a defendant offers inferior products or services. It is unclear that Plaintiffs here have alleged facts sufficient to support a claim of tarnishment.

Continue reading

Contact Information
Indiana Intellectual Property: IP Litigation, Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights
  • Seventh Circuit
  • Northern District of Indiana
  • Southern District of Indiana
Paul B. Overhauser
Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Greenfield
18 E Main St #202
Greenfield, IN 46140
Phone: 317.467.9100
Fax: 866.283.8549
Indianapolis
101 W Ohio St #2000
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317.891.1500
Fax: 866.283.8549

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design