Blog Tag

March 6, 2019 In Blog, Business, Intellectual Property, International

Supreme Court Decision On Copyright Registration Requirement

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that a lawsuit may not be brought for copyright infringement until the U.S. Copyright Office has acted – either granting or refusing an application for registration. As this blog noted last year, there was a circuit split as to whether a plaintiff could sue once the application was filed. The courts that held that filing an application was sufficient reasoned that the plaintiff would ultimately be entitled to sue after the Copyright Office weighed in, no matter the decision, so there was no reason to wait. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the registration requirement means what it says and that a registration must be granted or refused by the Copyright Office before a lawsuit may be brought.

As we have previously suggested, the Court’s decision will likely make bringing an infringement suit more difficult because applicants will have to wait for the Copyright Office to respond to their application, a process that could take nine months or more. Alternatively, potential copyright owners who want to sue might feel the need to register their works immediately through the Copyright Office’s five-day expedited process, which costs $800, and could get prohibitively expensive when registering multiple works.

Due to this long wait time, we generally encourage potential owners of copyrighted works to register their works promptly to ensure that they hold a copyright in the event an infringement does occur. The relatively small copyright registration fee of $55 allows for copyright owners to register more works and the availability of generous statutory damages and attorneys fees awards also incentivizes the registration of works before infringement begins. Read Supreme Court decision here: Copyright registration decision

August 6, 2018 In Blog, Business, Intellectual Property, International

Beware Fraudulent Trademark Solicitations

Example of trademark scam letter.

Trademark registration holders have increasingly been receiving deceptive notices soliciting money for services related to the renewal or monitoring of their patent and trademark registrations. Scammers attempt to make such notices look like authentic government documents and they use official-sounding names like the International Patent and Trademark Register, the U.S. Trademark Compliance Office, and the World Organization for Trademarks. Some organizations offer useless services like filing a patent or trademark in their own private registry while others do not perform the promised services at all.READ MORE

July 18, 2018 In Blog, Business, General Counsel, Intellectual Property, International, Litigation

Supreme Court to Resolve Split Regarding Copyright Registration Requirement

Section 411(a) of the U.S. Copyright Act provides that an action for copyright infringement may be brought after “preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title” or “where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused.” The courts are split as to whether a copyright claim may be brought once the copyright application, deposit, and fee is delivered to the Copyright Office or whether the plaintiff must wait until the Copyright Office responds to the application. The Fifth and Ninth Circuits have held the former, under the “application approach,” while the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have held the latter, under the “registration approach.” The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits have all acknowledged the divide, but refused to decide one way. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to an Eleventh Circuit case, Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com, to address this question.

July 11, 2018 In Blog, Business, General Counsel, Intellectual Property, International, Litigation

Spongebob Squarepants’ Fictional Restaurant Granted Real Trademark Rights

One of the bedrock principles of trademark law is that trademark rights stem from actual use of the trademark in commerce. In recent years, however, courts have been finding that imaginary use of the trademark in fictional works can suffice to create real right in a nonfictional setting.

The latest example of this phenomenon took place in Viacom International Inc. v. IJR Capital Investments, where the Fifth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision granting trademark protection to the Krusty Krab, a fictional restaurant in the television series SpongeBob SquarePants. Viacom sued IJR Capital Investment for unfair competition and trademark infringement because IJR had been trying to open up seafood restaurants in California and Texas under the Krusty Krab name since 2014. IJR Capital claimed that they did not base their name on the fictional restaurant, but rather the crusted glaze applied to cooked seafood. IJR noted that there was no Krusty Krab trademark already registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

March 28, 2018 In Blog, Business, Fashion & Lifestyle, General Counsel, Intellectual Property, International, Litigation, Media & Technology

ADA Website Accessibility Litigation Presents High Risk to Retailers

Adam Michaels | amichaels@hballp.com

Summary

The number of US lawsuits filed by visually impaired and other disabled people targeting business websites for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has reached fever pitch. Recent court rulings have emboldened plaintiffs’ attorneys and a significant uptick in litigation is expected in 2018. New York has proven particularly welcoming to these cases, with nearly 300 ADA website lawsuits targeting retail, fashion, and financial institutions filed in New York’s federal courts in the first quarter of 2018.

Despite this explosion of activity, many businesses are still unaware of the legal risk and continue to operate websites that fall short of accepted accessibility standards, courting ADA claims. Although monetary damages are unavailable under the ADA, these cases are not easily dismissed and the defense costs can be significant. To help minimize the lawsuit risk, businesses should consider proactive measures to ensure their websites meet the current accessibility standard.

November 22, 2017 In Blog, Business, General Counsel, Intellectual Property, International, Litigation, Media & Technology

Important Trademark Litigation Victory For HBA Client Affirmed on Appeal

Essentially concluding over five years of litigation, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on November 2, 2017 upheld the trial court’s determination that the sale of Clipps bag closures by Schutte Bagclosures Inc. (“Schutte”) did not infringe any trademark rights Kwik Lok Corporation (“Kwik Lok”). The court further upheld the lower court’s determination that Kwik Lok’s claimed trademark rights in the shape of bag closures were invalid because the shape was “functional” and that Kwik Lok’s trademark registration for that shape should be cancelled.
The same parties previously faced each other in court in the Netherlands, where the judge also ruled that Kwik Lok did not have valid trademark rights in their bag closures.

July 24, 2017 In Blog, Business, Fashion & Lifestyle, General Counsel

NYU Stern and the CFDA

NYU’s Stern School of Business offers it’s MBA students the opportunity to work with emerging fashion companies through its’ CFDA Masters Workshop. Stern students are paired with designers to work on a variety of financial, marketing and other business-related projects.

Check out a short video on the program here featuring partner Douglas Hand, who is also the professor of the Fashion Law & Business course offered at both NYU School of Law & NYU Stern School of Business.

July 18, 2017 In Blog, Business, Fashion & Lifestyle, General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Media & Technology, Sports & Entertainment

Lululemon Sues Under Armour For Design Patent Infringement Based on Sport Bra Strap Design

On July 7^th, athletic apparel company Lululemon Athletica filed suit against competitor Under Armour, alleging that three models of Under Armour sport bras infringed on design patents held by Lululemon as well as Lululemon’s trade dress. Specifically, Lululemon asserted that the interwoven strap design on Under Armour’s products closely resembled designs protected by patents Lululemon filed in 2014 and 2016, as well as a design first sold by Lululemon in 2011 as part of its Energy Bra model.

Design patents typically do not offer wide protection for fashion products. While relatively cheap to obtain compared to utility patents, design patents typically still cost several thousand dollars to register. Furthermore, design patents can only be obtained if an item has been on sale for less than a year and fashion designers often do not want to commit to a registration until and unless a design demonstrates that it will be a core product line going forward. Trade dress, on the other hand, does not require any formal filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). However, those seeking trade dress protection must also prove that the design has no functional component, as well as prove that the item conveys a distinctive secondary meaning to consumers that would be jeopardized by the sale of imitations.

June 30, 2017 In Blog, Business, Fashion & Lifestyle, General Counsel, Intellectual Property, International, Litigation, Media & Technology

Designers Are Using Social Media to Fight Knockoffs

The fashion industry is inundated with allegations of copyright violations and copied designs, often occurring when a small designer or brand claims that a large retailer or brand copies its designs. Traditionally, disputes over copied designs have been resolved through the legal system. Increasingly, however, social media and in particular Instagram has become a popular medium for small designers to fight back against larger companies that they believe copied their designs. With the support of passionate followers, these designers take to Instagram to spot and shame duplicates quickly, frequently resulting in the alleged offenders ceasing sales of the design in question.

Instagram has emerged as a channel to fight back against duplicate for several reasons. As HBA lawyer and NYU fashion law professor Douglas Hand stated in the recent article Designers Take Copyright Infringement Into Their Own Hands in the Business of Fashion, “copyright protection for designs, even post Star Athletica [v. Varsity Brands], is relatively thin when compared to Europe and other jurisdictions.” Therefore, the U.S. legal system may be an insufficient means for designers to successfully protect their designs. Additionally, smaller brands and up-and-coming designers often have neither the financial resources nor the time to litigate. Litigation is also undesirable because these small brands and designers frequently just want the offending designs removed from market and do not want a prolonged court battle.

June 21, 2017 In Blog, Business, Fashion & Lifestyle, General Counsel, Intellectual Property, International, Litigation, Media & Technology

Supreme Court Strikes Down Prohibition on “Offensive” Trademark Registration

On June 19, the Supreme Court ruled in Matal v. Tam that the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) could no longer deny trademark registrations for “marks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group.” Before this decision, the PTO used the Lanham Act’s Disparagement Clause as its legal basis for prohibiting protection for offensive names. The Court held, however, that the Disparagement Clause violated the First Amendment, reasoning that “Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

The Court’s decision has important ramifications for the NFL’s Washington Redskins and other sports teams with names and mascots that many consider to be offensive. The “Redskins” was considered racially offensive on several occasions by the PTO and was held to be ineligible for federal trademark registration. The Supreme Court’s decision allows for the Redskins name to receive the benefits of federal registration.