©2021. Published in Landslide, Vol. 13, No. 3, January/February 2021, by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association or the copyright holder.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued numerous landmark decisions in 2020, among those—for trademark scholars and practitioners—Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.1 The Court, with Justice Gorsuch delivering the majority opinion, held that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark as a precondition to a profits award. But Justice Gorsuch’s opinion and Justice Alito’s and Justice Sotomayor’s concurrences were clear that mental state is still a highly important consideration in determining whether to award profits. To that end, even with the Romag decision clarifying that willfulness is not a precondition for a profits award in a trademark infringement suit, the lower courts are likely to still require plaintiffs to prove that defendants had high levels of culpability before awarding profits for trademark infringement. Practitioners should expect that juries will find that defendants who knew of infringement or were reckless concerning the possibility of such conduct deserve to lose their profits.

Romag solidifies the threat posed to companies that rely on third-party manufacturers. By allowing a profits award when infringement is perpetrated with a mental state less than willfulness, this decision incentivizes companies using Chinese and other foreign manufacturers to innovate in order to mitigate these risks, either by strengthening supply chain oversight or (more likely) by writing contracts to control the risk as much as possible. Considering the importance of Chinese manufacturing to global trade, the Chinese legal system and its evolving trademark enforcement system will likely cause companies to get creative. Continue Reading Meeting of the Minds: The Price of Recklessness: Disgorgement of Profits in a Post-Romag World

A recent case in the Southern District of New York calls into serious question the ubiquitous practice of embedding photographs on a content creator’s website.

An embedded photo is one that is not hosted on the website’s own server, but instead is linked to a third-party server like a social media site.  Instead of the photo being permanently available on the website, the website pulls the photo from the third-party site live when the website is accessed by a user.  Platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok make it extremely easy for websites to embed user posts, and provide website designers with tools specifically meant to make embedding seamless for the user.

In a recent case (Sinclair v. Ziff Davis, LLC, 1:18-cv-00790, S.D.N.Y.), a professional photographer posted a photo to Instagram that was later embedded by Mashable in an article on its website.  In its original ruling, the court held that Instagram’s terms of service (which every user, including Sinclair, accepts when signing up) permitted the embedding on links on third party websites.  The court ruled that Instagram had the right to relicense Sinclair’s image to Mashable, and granted Mashable a dismissal of Sinclair’s claims. Continue Reading Recent Case Demonstrates the Need for Caution When Embedding Links to Social Media Posts

The answer is “Yes” because the U.S. government has waived sovereign immunity for claims of patent infringement.  This means the U.S. government can be sued for patent infringement in at least some instances.  However, special rules and certain limitations apply as explained in 28 U.S.C. § 1498, which states, in part:

(a) Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.

As a result, patent infringement lawsuits against the United States government, are not brought in Federal district courts but rather in the Court of Federal Claims, which is a special court “authorized to hear primarily money claims founded upon the Constitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or contracts, express or implied in fact, with the United States.”  See https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/.  Further, a patent owner cannot sue a federal contractor who made the allegedly infringing product or performed the allegedly infringing method, but instead, must sue the U.S. government.  Note, however, the U.S. government’s contract with the federal contractor may require the contractor to indemnify the government for liability and costs. Continue Reading Can the U.S. Government Be Liable for Patent Infringement?

Under the Copyright Act, an owner of a copyright suing for infringement may elect to seek statutory damages instead of actual damages.  The amount of statutory damages under the Copyright Act are limited to $30,000 for innocent infringement and up to $150,000 for willful infringement.  In Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc., et al. (decided February 2, 2021), the Ninth Circuit was confronted with the issue of whether a plaintiff is entitled to multiple statutory damage awards where some of the defendants are found to be jointly and severally liable with each other.

Desire is a fabric supplier that had obtained and registered with the Copyright office “a two dimensional floral print textile design.”  Shortly thereafter, a woman’s clothing manufacturing, Top Fashion, purchased a couple of yards of the fabric from Desire in order to secure a clothing order with Ashley Stewart, Inc., a woman’s clothing retailer.  Unfortunately, Top Fashion and Desire had a dispute over the fabric’s price.  Top Fashion then showed the design to Manna, a fabric designer, who in turn used a Chinese textile design firm to modify the design.  That designer changed approximately 30-40% of the original design, and Manna subsequently registered the “new” design with the Copyright Office. Continue Reading The Interplay Between Statutory Damages and Joint and Several Liability in a Copyright Infringement Action

Join Josh Escovedo and Jessica Corpuz in this one-hour webinar about Intellectual Property Law and will specifically address The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.

Program Summary:
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021—arising from the December 2020 stimulus bill—made significant changes to intellectual property law, unbeknownst to many practitioners. This webinar will focus on the changes to copyright and trademark law, and will give an overview of how those changes might affect you and your clients.

The webinar will specifically address the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019, which establishes a small-claims-court-type system through the U.S. Copyright Office for copyright holders to pursue low-value claims of infringement. The webinar will likewise address the Trademark Modernization Act, which is intended to better protect the public from confusion regarding the source of goods and services, and to implement procedures that the USPTO and trademark owners and applicants can use to more efficiently address fraudulent trademark filings.

Related Content:
Josh discusses this topic with Scott Hervey on an episode of The Briefing by the IP Law Blog. You can watch the episode here. Jessica also wrote a recent blog on the IP Law Blog about the topic. You can read her blog here.

Date & Time:
Thursday, February 25
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM PST

MCLE Credits:
This presentation will qualify for one hour of MCLE.

Registration:
To register, please click here.