By W. Scott Cameron

Last month, in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) companies[1] sued Load ‘N Go Video, a small company that loads customer purchased DVDs onto their personal iPods, for copyright infringement and violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

          Based out of Boston, Load ‘N Go was founded in 2005 to help consumers get video content on to their portable media players, such as iPods. Load ‘N Go sells iPods and DVDs to their customers, who pay the company an additional charge to load purchased DVDs onto their iPod or other portable video player. Load ‘N Go then sends both the customized iPod and original purchased DVDs back to the customer.

[1] Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Studios, Warner Bros Entertainment, Disney Enterprises, Columbia TriStar Television and Columbia Pictures

Continue Reading Should Ripping Your Purchased DVDs Onto Your iPod Be Illegal? The Motion Picture Association Says “Yes!”

By Andrea Anapolksy

          In the wake of jury selection for the Coco-Cola Co. theft trade secrets trial and Apple Computer’s two-year quest to discover who leaked trade secret information about an unreleased Apple product to several online blog sites, misappropriation of a company’s trade secrets may have become increasingly more difficult to prevent. This article will be the first of  a two-part series which examines the trade secrets doctrine and recent developments related to it.  This article in particular will assess the doctrine of trade secrets under California law and will offer available remedies on avoiding misappropriation.  

Continue Reading A Refresher on the Trade Secrets Doctrine, Part I

By Jeffrey Pietsch

In 2006, Federal District Courts throughout the country were asked to decide if purchasing and using trademark-protected keywords to trigger internet advertising constitute trademark violations as contemplated by the Lanham Act. Unfortunately for advertisers, these rulings were inconsistent. In 2007, this trend continues with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruling in J.G. Wentworth v. Settlement Funding, LLC, No. 06-0597 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2007). In J.G. Wentworth, the court siding with advertisers, ruled that using trademark-protected words to trigger internet advertising does not violate trademark law.

Continue Reading Settlement In Keyword / Trademark Dispute

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