27 August

Sticky

No Copyright Protection for Iconic Monkey Selfie

Posted by Michael

In 2011, wildlife photographer David Slater set up a camera on Sulawesi, a small island in Indonesia. Mr. Slater received an unanticipated gift, a monkey picked up his camera and took hundreds of pictures, including self-portraits or “selfies” that have gone viral on the web this past year. Recently, controversy has erupted over who owns the copyright to the photos. David Slater has claimed ownership, along with thousands of dollars in unpaid royalties from the photos that went viral. As reported by the BBC and The Los Angeles Times, “Wikimedia, the nonprofit behind Wikipedia, says the pictures taken by the...

08 July

0 Comments

Sticky

LANHAM ACT: ISSUES AFTER LEXMARK AND POM WONDERFUL

Posted by Michael

in Trademark

For anyone in the food and beverage industry or involved in business marketing, Michael Cohen will be moderating a seminar on July 14, 2014 at 1PM entitled LANHAM ACT: ISSUES AFTER LEXMARK AND POM WONDERFUL. http://www.lawseminars.com/detail.php?SeminarCode=14LATB ...

19 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Redskins’ Cancellation of Disparaging Trademark Interview

Posted by Michael

in Trademark

As a follow up to yesterday’s blogpost regarding the landmark decision by the TTAB to cancel the Redskins’ trademarks, I did an interview on KFI 640 AM with Bryan Suits. Enjoy! http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=1391&c=14803&f=2955333 ...

19 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Redskins Trademark Cancelled by the Trademark Office

Posted by Michael

in Trademark

Today, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), cancelled six registered trademarks, that include the term “Redskins” for the Washington Redskins, owned by the NFL. The plaintiffs in the matter were able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the term Redskins is “disparaging” to a substantial composite of the Native American population. Under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, words that “may disparage” individuals or groups or “bring them into contempt or disrepute” are not permitted as trademarks. The ruling pertains to six different trademarks associated with the team, each containing the word “Redskin.” When it comes to...

22 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Taylor Swift Trademark Infringement Lawsuit with Lucky 13

Posted by Michael

in Trademark

The clothing and apparel company, Blue Sphere Inc. doing business as Lucky 13, and Robert A. Kloetzly filed a complaint against Taylor Swift and her business entities. In the complaint, BLUE SPHERE, INC. et al. v. SWIFT, et al. CASE NO.: 8:14-cv-00782, Swift is accused of allegedly infringing on Blue Sphere’s federally protected trademarks by selling merchandise using the phrase “Lucky 13” without Blue Sphere Inc.’s authorization. The origin of the action is simple. “Lucky 13” is a clothing and apparel company that has federally protected trademarks using the phrase “Lucky 13” on clothing and their merchandise. However, Swift happens...

16 May

0 Comments

Sticky

European Union Search Engine Privacy Ruling Effects Millions

Posted by Michael

in Uncategorized

This week, the European Union’s highest court ruled that “a search engine like Google should allow online users to be ‘forgotten’ after a certain time by erasing links to web pages unless there are ‘particular reasons’ not to.” This ruling, which affects EU’s 500 million citizens, pushes the brakes on the web’s free flow of information that many assumed would remain online permanently. The court said, “search engines were not simply dumb pipes, but played an active role as data controllers,” and must be held accountable for the links they provide. Search engines could be compelled to remove links to...

09 May

0 Comments

Sticky

U.S. Supreme Court Cracks Down on Patent Trolls

Posted by Michael

in Litigation, Patent

The Supreme Court last week struck a blow to patent owners who made a living off threatening others with frivolous litigation by loosening the standard for the prevailing party to collect legal fees. Patent owners that do not sell products or services, but earn or try to earn the majority of their income by enforcing their patents through frivolous litigation are commonly known as “Non-practicing entities” (NPEs) or “Patent Trolls.” For years, some NPEs would buy patents for the sole purpose of using their new ownership rights against corporations by demanding licensing fees, or litigation. The cost of paying a...

30 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Jay-Z Copyright Infringement Case with Dwayne Walker

Posted by Michael

in Copyright

Back in 2012, Dwayne Walker filed a lawsuit against Jay-Z for breach of contract and copyright infringement for failure to pay royalties, claiming that he designed the iconic logo for Roc-A-Fella records, Jay-Z’s record company and is owed $7,000,000. The lawsuit, Dwayne D. Walker, Jr. v. Shawn Carter (“Jay-Z”) et al, case no. 12-cv-05384(ALC)(RLE), was filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York in 2012. The Plaintiff’s alleges that that “Jay Z, Dame Dash, and Kareem “Biggs” Burke, all agreed to pay Walker $3,500 for the design of the Roc-A-Fella logo. However, Dwayne Walker stipulated in...

24 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Copyright Aereo Oral Arguments in US Supreme Court

Posted by Michael

in Copyright

This week, The U.S. Supreme Court began the oral argument stage for ABC Inc. v. Aereo, No. 13-461, a case with colossal ramifications on copyright law. ABC is joined by CBS, Disney, Fox, Comcast’s NBC Universal, and the federal government. The Aereo Company, based in Long Island, NY is an internet alternative to watching television. Aereo charges its subscribers a monthly fee to watch television stations over the internet, without the company having a license to do so, or paying retransmission fees to local affiliates. The case turns on a part of the copyright law that requires copyright owners’ permission for...

15 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Apple Seeks $2.2 Billion in Damages from Samsung

Posted by Michael

in Patent

The 2nd trial between Apple and Samsung is 5 days in, Apple is seeking $2.2 billion in damages from Samsung for alleged infringements of 5 of Apple’s patents. Apple filed Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al in the California Northern District Court on February 20, 2012, and to make things interesting Samsung filed a counterclaim, alleging that two patents have been infringed on by Apple. Samsung is seeking $6 million, a fraction in comparison. The two tech heavyweights have been at each other's throats for years, and by July 2012 had over 50 lawsuits against each other...

Blog