Over the last several years as I have interviewed clients, lectured students, and otherwise engaged in discussions relating to intellectual property, specifically copyrights, I have found that people have more misconceptions about copyright law than most other areas of law. Although many of these misconceptions, or myths, have their origin in a kernel of truth, or are the reasonable conclusions of a logical mind, they are nonetheless misconceptions and operating under these incorrect beliefs can adversely affect a person’s legal rights. Below are five of the most common myths.
“First Sale” doctrine allows radio disc jockeys and music critics who are provided with promotional CDs to resell such CDs without infringing the copyright holder’s copyright in those CDs
by Do promotional CDs sent by music recording companies to radio disc jockeys and music critics which contain labels restricting distribution of the CDs and purport to create a license agreement actually create a license agreement between the recording company and the recipient, thereby rendering inapplicable the “first sale” doctrine—an affirmative defense to copyright infringement that allows owners of copies of copyrighted works to resell those copies? In UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto, No. 08-55998 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2011) (“UMG Recordings”), the Ninth Circuit answered in the negative.
Naked Licensing: Trademark Owners Beware
by Naked licensing is not as fun as the name suggests. Rather it can mark the end of a trademark owner’s exclusive right to their trademark. A trademark owner may grant a license to another to use the owner’s trademark. For example, following the San Francisco Giants’ World Series victory, the amount and type of products that featured the Giants trademark was mindboggling. Each of these products, if legally produced, would have obtained a license from the Giants to produce these goods. The consumer purchasing these goods and seeing the Giants’ trademark would have an idea as to the quality of the merchandise based on the trademark. Naked licensing occurs when the trademark owner fails to exercise adequate quality control over the licensee. This failure may result in the trademark ceasing to represent the quality of the product or service the consumer has come to expect. The Ninth Circuit stated that such licensing is “inherently deceptive and constitutes the abandonment of any rights to the trademark by the licensor.”
Affiliated Companies and Likelihood of Confusion
by Matt Massari
It may make business sense to put ownership of related trademarks in different subsidiaries. Under In re Wella A.G., 787 F.2d 1549, 229 USPQ 274 (Fed. Cir. 1986), one can generally register similar marks owned by affiliated companies, as long as it’s done properly under the requirements of the Trademark Act.
Continue Reading Affiliated Companies and Likelihood of Confusion
Technicalities Surrounding Statutory Damages Under The Copyright Act Trigger Suit Against Law Firm Prosecuting Online Infringement Actions
By Scott Hervey
The motion picture industry’s battle against cyber piracy took an interesting twist when an individual who allegedly engaged in the illegal downloading of the movie Far Cry filed a lawsuit against the Copyright Group and the law firm that has filed numerous suits against thousands of alleged infringers. To date, the law firm, Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver has filed suit against 20,000 anonymous “Doe” defendants for illegal file trading copies of various motion pictures, including Hurt Locker and Far Cry. Once the firm determines a defendant’s true identity it then sends out a demand letter informing the individual that they have been identified as having illegally downloaded a motion picture and explaining that the plaintiff is entitled up to $30,000 in damages under the Copyright Act for each infringed work (and in cases where the plaintiff can prove that the infringement was intentional, up to $150,000 in damages.) The firm then offers the individual an early opportunity to settle for $2,500 before it is named as a defendant in the complaint.