Weintraub Firm

Subscribe to Weintraub Firm's Posts

By: James Kachmar

In late December, the Ninth Circuit revisited the “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) in the case UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 101 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1001. Veoh is a web service that allows users to view videos uploaded by other users.   Veoh was sued for copyright infringement by UMG, one of the world’s largest music and music publishing companies. 

Before a user can upload and share a video, on Veoh’s site, he/she must agree to Veoh’s publisher terms and conditions and terms of use, both of which bar the user from uploading any videos that infringe on another’s copyrights. Also immediately prior to uploading a video, a message appears on Veoh’s website warning the user not to upload infringing videos. Continue Reading Revisiting the “Safe Harbor” Provisions of the DMCA

By Nathan Geronimo

Kinbook, LLC, an online social networking company, recently sued Microsoft for unfair competition and reverse trademark infringement in United States District Court.  (Kinbook, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8570.) Kinbook created a Facebook application called “Kinbox,” which allows Facebook users to create private sub-social networks for sharing of information within a subset of their list of Facebook friends.  Kinbox was formally launched on Facebook in December 2009, and Kinbook’s use of the Kinbox mark was approved in September 2010.

In November 2010 Microsoft released “Kinect,” a motion-sensor interface device for the XBOX 360 that allows users to control the XBOX 360 through gestures and voice commands.  In April 2010, Microsoft released the “Kin” phone, a mobile smart phone for use with the Verizon Wireless mobile phone service.  Microsoft stopped production of the Kin after just two months due to a lack of consumer demand for the product.Continue Reading Court Finds Kinect and Kinbox Not Kinected

By Zachary Wadlé

In my last column of 2011 I wrote about the proposed “Stop Online Piracy Act” (“SOPA”) introduced in the United States Congress to provide the government with enhanced, but highly controversial, tools to fight online copyright infringement. As I noted, SOPA “spawned a fierce public relations and lobbying battle between Silicon Valley and Hollywood that will play out in the media and in the halls of Congress in the months to come.” Despite the spotty record of my predictive powers, these words turned out to be prescient. The debate over SOPA has blown up in recent weeks, culminating with Wikipedia’s (and many other well-known internet sites) decision to black out their website on January 19, 2012. Google got in on the act too by “censoring” the Google logo on its homepage, (but still allowing use of its search engine and all other Google web services).

The online blackout led by Wikipedia had an immediate effect. The next day, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, postponed critical votes on SOPA (and its companion Senate Bill – the “Protect Intellectual Property Act” or “PIPA”). Rumors swirled that Reid did not have the necessary 60 votes in the Senate to move the legislation past a key procedural hurdle, and Smith said, “I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy.” For now, the legislation is tabled for further negotiation and re-drafting in light of the substantial criticism from internet heavyweights.Continue Reading ONLINE PIRACY WAR HEATS UP

By: David Muradyan

 

The Copyright Act of 1976 provides copyright protection for original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression forthe owner’s literary, musical, artistic and other works. Owners of copyrights have a number of exclusive rights, including the right to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies, to prepare derivative works based upon the work, and to distribute copies of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership. One who uses another’s copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner may be liable for copyright infringement, unless that person can demonstrate that the use was “fair use,” which is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. 

 

Copyright and Copyright Infringement

 

The Constitution authorizes the Congress "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. In exercising this power, Congress must balance “the interest of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society’s competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand.” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984). Congress crafted a comprehensive statutory scheme governing copyrights with the enactment of the Copyright Act. Continue Reading The “Fair Use” Doctrine in Copyright Infringement Actions

By Jeff Pietsch

Trademark infringement occurs when a third party uses a mark in a way that infringes upon a trademark owner’s exclusive right and use of a trademark. Often, the third party will use a similar mark in a way that confuses consumers as to the source of the goods and services. For example, a fast food restaurant named “Wendi’s” would likely cause confusion with “Wendy’s.” Trademark infringement can occur only when it is likely that consumers will be confused as to the source of the goods. The purpose of this article is to examine the test and factors that courts use to determine if such infringement exists.

Many courts have developed a balancing test to determine if a mark infringes on another. This balancing test has largely grown from the seminal case Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2nd Cir. 1961). In that case, the court identified several variables to consider when assessing if a mark is infringing on another mark. This balancing test seeks to determine if consumers would likely be confused as to the source of the marks. If the test favors that confusion would likely result, then the court will likely rule that infringement exists. On the other hand, if confusion is unlikely or minimal, the court will likely rule against infringement.Continue Reading Trademark Infringement: Factors Considered in Consumer Confusion