Photo of Scott Hervey

Scott Hervey

Subscribe to Scott Hervey's Posts

Scott Hervey is a corporate and intellectual property attorney at Weintraub Tobin who works with companies in a variety of different industries. His clients include wineries, restaurants, technology companies, and entertainment/new media ventures. Scott has led his clients through hundreds of matters involving complex acquisitions, licensing, financings, and other transactions. He also assists clients in protecting their valuable brands through trademark infringement litigation, domain name infringement arbitration, and proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Trademark Trial and Appeals Board. He discusses IP Law topics on the weekly video series The Briefing.

Follow:Read more about Scott HerveyScott's Linkedin ProfileScott's Twitter Profile

In this author’s opinion, I believe that most consumers see wine, beer and mineral water as unrelated products and would not believe that beer, wine or mineral water that share similar trademark elements (e.g., similar words or similar design) are related or emanate from the same source.  However, the TTAB has found otherwise.

Beginning with its 1992 decision in In re Sailerbrau Franz Sailer, the TTAB has been receptive to arguments that wine and beer are related.  In In re Sailerbrau, the TTAB found the mark CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS for beer confusingly similar to the mark CRISTOBAL COLON and Design for sweet wine.  The TTAB found persuasive the third party registrations introduced by the trademark examiner showing that a number of companies have registered their marks for both beer and wine.

Following that case, the TTAB adjudicated a number of non-precedential cases in which the TTAB found beer and wine related.  For example, in In re Stonestreet, LLC, the TTAB found the mark BUCKEYE for wine confusingly similar to the mark BUCKEYE SPARKLING DRY (stylized) for beer.  Similar to In re Sailerbrau, the TTAB found persuasive third party registrations covering both beer and wine.  The applicant in In re Stonestreet argued that the Federal Circuit case of G.H. Mumm & Cie v. Desnoes & Geddes Ltd., required a finding that beer and wine are not related.  However, the TTAB was not persuaded.  The record in G.H. Mumm demonstrated the MUMM brand champagne to be a premium sparkling wine marketed by one of France’s top quality champagne producers.  The record in Stonestreet lacked any such distinction.
Continue Reading Clearing Marks In the Beverage Space Has Become Increasingly Complex

The answer may surprise you.

This dispute over ownership of Facebook ‘likes’ pits the creator of a fan Facebook page for a TV show against the television network that owns the show.  The facts of the dispute are as follows:   From 2008, the CW Network broadcasted the television series “The Game”, a dramatic comedy about the lives of professional football players and their wives and girlfriends.  BET acquired the syndication rights to the series in 2010 and then in 2011 began producing original episodes.

In 2008, when the series was on the CW Network, Stacey Mattocks created a Facebook fan page for the series.  Mattocks did not post any CW or BET owned content and she did not hold the Facebook page out to the public as the “official” series page.  Around October 2010, BET hired Mattocks to perform part-time work managing the series’ Facebook page.  BET then regularly instructed Mattocks to post, or not to post, certain information on the page and provided her with exclusive photos and video clips.  Mattocks posted most of the content on the FB Page, but BET employees also occasionally posted material.  Apparently Mattocks did a good job managing the series’ Facebook page as the number of ‘likes’ grew from around two million to over six million.

In February 2011, BET and Mattocks entered into a written agreement regarding each parties’ rights and privileges regarding the Facebook page. Mattocks granted BET full administrative access to the page, and BET agreed not to exclude Mattocks from the page by changing her administrative rights.  However, it appears that this agreement was silent on which party owned the Facebook page.
Continue Reading Who Owns Facebook “Likes” on Your Page

Recently, Wikimedia (the entity behind Wikipedia) has refused repeated requests from professional photographer David Slater to remove from one of his most famous photos from its royalty free photo collection website.  The photo at issue is a “monkey selfie.” Slater claims he owns the copyright to the photo and Wikimedia is using it without his permission.  Bananas! claimed Wikimedia;  a recent report reveals that Wikimedia editors decided that Mr Slater has no claim on the image as the monkey itself took the picture.

In what must be the wildest of luck, Slater was visiting a North Sulawesi national park in Indonesia when a black macaque grabbed an errant camera and took an amazing array of self-portraits.   These amazing pictures ran in an July 5 article about the incident in the UK’s Daily Mail.  Two of the four pictures featured in the article included a copyright notice indicating Caters News Agency (Slater’s photo agency) as the owner.

Can Canters News Agency or Mr. Slater own the copyright in the photos taken by this highly intelligent and obviously photogenic?   In order for this to be the case, the monkey would have to be an author under the Copyright Act.    And if a monkey can be considered an author, he or she would have to assign or transfer the copyright in the photos to Caters News Agency.
Continue Reading Copyright Ownership Claim Of Pictures Taken By Wild Ape is Monkey Business

Clearly there is no love lost between John Wayne Enterprises, LLC (“JWE”), the entity owned by John Wayne’s heirs which controls the intellectual property related to John Wayne, and Duke University.   Both have have been locked in battle over various trademarks incorporating the word DUKE.  The most recent skirmish involves a trademark application filed by John Wayne Enterprises, LLC (“JWE”)  for the following design mark for alcoholic beverages, excluding beer:

Duke University requested and was granted  an extension of time to potentially opposition to the registration of this mark.    Previously, Duke University opposed JWE’s’ application to register DUKE for restaurant services, claiming that the mark is likely to cause confusion with Duke University’s other DUKE trademarks and/or dilute Duke University’s famous trademarks. Specifically, Duke University alleged that:  “[JWE] seeks to register a mark that is substantially similar to [the University’s] famous mark DUKE, and that moreover is likely to be abbreviated simply as DUKE and expressed orally simply  as DUKE, for goods that are closely related to goods and services with which [the University’s] DUKE Marks are used…”

It appears that this time, JWE took John Wayne’s quote  “You tangle with me, I’ll have your hide.” literally and didn’t wait and see whether the University actually filed an opposition.  JEW filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, requesting the court to declare that the above mark does not infringe or dilute any of the DUKE trademarks owned by Duke University.  In its complaint it alleges that “Duke University believes that products bearing John Wayne’s world renowned image and signature…will somehow be confused with being associated with Duke University.” Further, JWE alleges that “in light of the multiple Oppositions and Cancellation proceedings Duke University has filed against JWE and the claims made therein, JEW believes Duke University contends that JEW’s [registration and use of its marks] or any other mark that includes the term DUKE are likely to cause confusion with [the marks owned by Duke University] and intends to sue JWE for trademark infringement, notwithstanding that JWE’s use is directly associated with and expressly linked to John Wayne.”
Continue Reading The Duke and Duke Duke It Out In Trademark Rowe

In one corner, Paula Petrella, the daughter of Frank Petrella, co-author of the 1963 Raging Bull screenplays and book.  In the other corner, MGM, the owner of the copyright in the critically acclaimed motion picture Raging Bull, based on the life of boxing champion Jake LaMotta.   At issue, a 2009 copyright infringement suit against MGM in which Petrella alleged that MGM violated and continued to violate her copyright in the 1963 screenplay by using, producing, and distributing the Raging Bull motion picture.  MGM, landed two very solid blows in both the District Court of the Central District of California and at the 9th Circuit;  MGM was able to have Petrella’s case dismissed on the equitable doctrine of laches.  However, the Supreme Court decided that Petrella could go another round.

After retiring from boxing, Jake LaMotta worked with Frank Petrella to tell his life story.  Their efforts resulted in two screenplays, one registered in 1963, the other in 1973, and a book, registered in 1970.  In 1976, Frank Petrella and LaMotta assigned their rights in the three works, including renewal rights, to Chartoff-Winkler Productions, Inc. Two years later, an MGM subsidiary, United Artists, acquired the motion picture rights to the book and both screenplays.  In 1980, MGM released the film Raging Bull.

A year after the release of the film, Frank Petrella died.  Works registered under the pre-1978 regime (such as the 1963 screenplay) enjoyed an initial 28-year period of protection followed by a renewal period of up to 67 years.  Congress provided that the author’s heirs inherit the renewal rights.  Since Frank’s death occurred during the initial terms of the copyrights in the screenplays and book, his renewal rights reverted to his daughter, who could renew the copyrights unburdened by Frank’s assignment of the renewal right to Chartoff-Winkler.  Paula Petrella renewed the copyright in the 1963 screenplay in 1991.  (The copyrights in the other screenplay and book were not timely renewed.)  In 1998, Petrella’s attorney informed MGM that Petrella was the owner of the copyright in the 1963 screenplay and that MGM’s exploitation of any derivative work, including the Raging Bull motion picture,  infringed her copyright.  For two years, Petrella and MGM took jabs at each other by exchanging letters in which MGM denied the validity of the infringement claims and Petrella repeatedly threatened to take legal action.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Says Raging Bull Copyright Case To Go Another Round