In this week’s episode of The Briefing from the IP Law Blog, Josh Escovedo and Scott Hervey discuss an update to the litigation over Andy Warhol’s series of portraits of the artist Prince (Andy Warhol Foundation v Goldsmith). They provide a recap of last week’s episode, which covers the Second Circuit decision in favor of Goldsmith, the photographer whose image Warhol used to create the Prince Portraits, and the holding that Warhol’s renditions were not transformative enough to be fair use. That decision overturned a lower court decision in favor of the Warhol Foundation.
Continue Reading The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Andy Warhol’s Prince Prints – Not Fair Use!? (Part Two)

In this week’s episode, Josh Escovedo and Scott Hervey discuss the litigation over Andy Warhol’s series of portraits of the artist Prince (Andy Warhol Foundation v Goldsmith). Their discussion covers the Second Circuit decision in favor of Goldsmith, the photographer whose image Warhol used to create the Prince Portraits, and the holding that Warhol’s renditions were not transformative enough to be fair use. The decision overturned a lower court decision in favor of the Warhol Foundation.
Continue Reading The Briefing – Andy Warhol’s Prince Prints: Not Fair Use!? (Part One)

 

Almost five years ago, I wrote an article published in the Daily Recorder about a ruling in the Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation case filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Specifically, I wrote about the Court granting Tiffany’s motion for summary judgment on liability, permitting Tiffany to proceed to trial on the issue of damages. Tiffany eventually did exactly that and obtained a $21 million judgment against Costco for selling unbranded engagement rings as “Tiffany” diamond engagement rings. But just over a week ago, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for trial.

To recap, Tiffany sued Costco for selling other rings and using the word Tiffany on nearby signage to describe those rings, claiming trademark infringement and unfair business practices. Costco responded to the allegations by claiming that “Tiffany” is a word used throughout the industry to refer to a particular style of setting–a diamond solitaire in a six-prong setting. Costco argued that consumers are aware of this use of “Tiffany” and that its use was therefore unlikely to cause consumer confusion. Costco also argued that Tiffany is not a legally protected trademark because the mark is descriptive or generic for that style of setting. For that reason, Costco requested that the Court cancel Tiffany’s trademark.
Continue Reading The Second Circuit Vacates Tiffany & Co.’s $21 Million Judgment for Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting Against Costco