Weintraub Firm

Subscribe to Weintraub Firm's Posts

By Scott Hervey

On October 31, 2005, adult film actress Mary Cook filed a trademark registration application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark MARY CAREY for motion pictures featuring adult entertainment, and a series of prerecorded video cassettes, DVDs, multimedia software and interactive multimedia featuring adult video and visual dramatic performances. On August 29, 2006, the USPTO published the mark in the Official Gazette, beginning the thirty day period in which any third party who believes that they would be damaged by the registration of the mark could oppose its registration. If no opposition is filed within the thirty day time period, the USPTO will usually register the mark. However, on December 27, 2006 pop star diva Mariah Carey, through her company Automatic Princess Holdings, LLC, filed an opposition to the registration of the porn star’s mark, MARY CAREY, claiming that consumers are likely to be confused and believe that there is some association or affiliation between the MARIAH CAREY marks owned by the pop star and MARY CAREY. Continue Reading Trademark Battle: Pop Star v. Porn Star

By James Kachmar

          A California appellate court affirmed last month that an employer is entitled to immunity from tort liability for threatening emails sent on or through the employer’s internet/email system by one of its employees. On December 14, 2006, the Sixth Appellate District in the case Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., 2006 WL3635399, affirmed summary judgment in Agilent’s favor finding that Agilent, as an employer, was immune from tort liability under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”) for threatening emails sent and posted by one of its employees. This case, apparently one of first impression, extended the immunity protections of the CDA to cover corporate employers who provide their employees with internet access through internal computer systems. Employers thus have additional protection from claims that their employees have used the employer’s computer system to commit torts against third persons.Continue Reading Employers: You May Be Eligible for Immunity Under the Communications Decency Act

By Scott Hervey

On October 16 the Register of Copyrights issued an interpretation of Section 115 of the Copyright Act that will make it easier for record labels and cellular phone services to offer ringtones to consumers. The question, whether compositions used for ringtones [monophonic (single melody line) or polyphonic (melody and harmony)] or for master ringtones (ringtones taken from a master recording) fall under the compulsory license provisions of Section 115 of the Copyright Act, was referred to the Register of Copyrights by the Copyright Royalty Board (“CRB”) acting on a request from the RIAA. The decision – that ringtones (including monophonic and polyphonic ringtones, as well as mastertones) may be subject to a compulsory license – marks a major victory for record labels and cellular phone services looking to fuel the ringtone hungry market.Continue Reading Copyright Office Clears the way for more Ringtones