| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
Thursday, June 29, 2017
One Year On: Developments in the Protection of Trade Secrets; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Director's Forum Blog, June 29, 2017
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Should robot artists be given copyright protection?; Phys.org, June 26, 2017
Andres Guadamuz, Phys.org; Should robot artists be given copyright protection?
"But who owns creative works generated by artificial intelligence? This isn't just an academic question. AI is already being used to generate works in music, journalism and gaming, and these works could in theory be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author.
This would mean they could be freely used and reused by anyone and that would be bad news for the companies selling them. Imagine you invest millions in a system that generates music for video games, only to find that music isn't protected by law and can be used without payment by anyone in the world."
"But who owns creative works generated by artificial intelligence? This isn't just an academic question. AI is already being used to generate works in music, journalism and gaming, and these works could in theory be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author.
This would mean they could be freely used and reused by anyone and that would be bad news for the companies selling them. Imagine you invest millions in a system that generates music for video games, only to find that music isn't protected by law and can be used without payment by anyone in the world."
Lawyers Rally to Save ‘McMansion Hell’ from Zillow’s Copyright Claim; Fortune, June 27, 2017
Jeff John Roberts, Fortune; Lawyers Rally to Save ‘McMansion Hell’ from Zillow’s Copyright Claim
"A Zillow spokesperson has sent the following statement to media outlets:
"We are asking this blogger to take down the photos that are protected by copyright rules, but we did not demand she shut down her blog and hope she can find a way to continue her work," the statement reads.
The McMansion Hell controversy is likely to end with Wagner's site going back online, and with Zillow becoming the latest victim of what is known as "the Streisand effect"—a phenomenon in which an attempt to use dubious legal tactics to smother an issue on the Internet results in even more publicity for that issue. (Ironically, the original Streisand effect case—named for Barbara Streisand—also turned on mansions)."
"A Zillow spokesperson has sent the following statement to media outlets:
"We are asking this blogger to take down the photos that are protected by copyright rules, but we did not demand she shut down her blog and hope she can find a way to continue her work," the statement reads.
The McMansion Hell controversy is likely to end with Wagner's site going back online, and with Zillow becoming the latest victim of what is known as "the Streisand effect"—a phenomenon in which an attempt to use dubious legal tactics to smother an issue on the Internet results in even more publicity for that issue. (Ironically, the original Streisand effect case—named for Barbara Streisand—also turned on mansions)."
Sleepless Nights for GCs Caused by Regulations and Crisis Management; Inside Counsel, June 22, 2017
Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, Inside Counsel; Sleepless Nights for GCs Caused by Regulations and Crisis Management
"The inaugural "General Counsel Up-at-Night" report looks at responses to an online survey conducted in spring 2017 from more than 200 U.S.-based general counsel and other in-house legal decision-makers.
"The inaugural "General Counsel Up-at-Night" report looks at responses to an online survey conducted in spring 2017 from more than 200 U.S.-based general counsel and other in-house legal decision-makers.
The results reveal that the most pressing challenges faced by respondents are: regulations and enforcement; privacy and data security; risk and crisis management; litigation; and intellectual property. Among these, the biggest concerns are regulations and enforcement, with 74 percent of respondents identifying this as a very important challenge, followed by privacy and data security with 65 percent and risk and crisis management with 63 percent."
Monday, June 26, 2017
Patents can stifle, as well as protect, stifle innovation; Albuquerque Journal, June 26, 2017
Joel Jacobsen, Albuquerque Journal;
Patents can stifle, as well as protect, stifle innovation
"The absence of patent protection would make it difficult if not impossible for many inventors to profit from their ingenuity. But when a second inventor vastly improves on an original idea, as Curtiss did, isn’t he equally entitled to reap the rewards of his own ingenuity? Even apart from questions of fairness, society benefits from both the original invention and its subsequent improvement. Both types of progress deserve legal protection."
Inventor's Corner: What happens when someone infringes a patent?; Sioux Falls Business Journal via Argus Journal, June 23, 2017
Jeffrey Proehl, for the Sioux Falls Business Journal via Argus Journal; Inventor's Corner: What happens when someone infringes a patent?
"Jeffrey Proehl is a registered patent attorney with Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith P.C. in Sioux Falls.
Although the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants patents, the U.S. government does not enforce patents against infringers. When a patent owner becomes aware someone without authorization is “making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing” a product that infringes the owner’s patent, the owner has the option to enforce the patent."
Sunday, June 25, 2017
How Bad Intellectual Property Laws Hurt Classic Video Game Consumers; Forbes, June 25, 2017
Adam Ozimek, Forbes; How Bad Intellectual Property Laws Hurt Classic Video Game Consumers
"The economic purpose of intellectual property is to incentivize the creation of products that would not otherwise be created. These laws can benefit consumers, but the granting of monopoly rights creates a cost as well. In terms of balancing costs and benefits, the current copyright system is -to be frank- absurd. A look at how excessive copyright is harming back video game consumers makes that clear."
"The economic purpose of intellectual property is to incentivize the creation of products that would not otherwise be created. These laws can benefit consumers, but the granting of monopoly rights creates a cost as well. In terms of balancing costs and benefits, the current copyright system is -to be frank- absurd. A look at how excessive copyright is harming back video game consumers makes that clear."
The great intellectual property trade-off; BBC, June 25, 2017
Tim Harford, BBC; The great intellectual property trade-off
"For most economists, scrapping intellectual property entirely is going too far. They point to important cases - such as new medicines - where the costs of invention are enormous and the costs of copying are trivial.
"For most economists, scrapping intellectual property entirely is going too far. They point to important cases - such as new medicines - where the costs of invention are enormous and the costs of copying are trivial.
But those who defend intellectual property protections still tend to argue that - right now - those protections offer more than enough incentive to create new ideas.
Dickens himself eventually discovered a financial upside to weak copyright protection.
Twenty five years after his initial visit to the US, Dickens returned, keen to make some money.
He reckoned that so many people had read cheap knock-offs of his stories that he could cash in on his fame with a lecture tour. He was absolutely right: off the back of pirated copies of his work, Charles Dickens made a fortune as a public speaker, many millions of dollars in today's terms.
Perhaps the intellectual property was worth more when given away."
Tupac Shakur Biopic 'All Eyez On Me' Hit With Copyright Infringement Lawsuit; NPR, June 23, 2017
Andrew Flanagan, NPR; Tupac Shakur Biopic 'All Eyez On Me' Hit With Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
"A week after opening to a tepid critical response and accusations of historical inaccuracies from actress Jada Pinkett Smith — as well as a misinterpreted Internet joke that had many searching in vain for the appearance of an iPhone in the film — the Tupac Shakur biopic All Eyez On Me has now been hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit.
The suit — filed today by Kevin Powell, a longtime pop culture writer, author, activist — accuses the film's executive producers, screenwriters and distributors of cribbing from three cover stories on Shakur that Powell wrote for Vibe during the height of Shakur's career. [Disclosure: NPR Music published an article by Powell, a remembrance of the recently deceased rapper Prodigy, earlier today.]"
"A week after opening to a tepid critical response and accusations of historical inaccuracies from actress Jada Pinkett Smith — as well as a misinterpreted Internet joke that had many searching in vain for the appearance of an iPhone in the film — the Tupac Shakur biopic All Eyez On Me has now been hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit.
The suit — filed today by Kevin Powell, a longtime pop culture writer, author, activist — accuses the film's executive producers, screenwriters and distributors of cribbing from three cover stories on Shakur that Powell wrote for Vibe during the height of Shakur's career. [Disclosure: NPR Music published an article by Powell, a remembrance of the recently deceased rapper Prodigy, earlier today.]"
Friday, June 23, 2017
Elsevier Wins $15 Million in Copyright Suit Against Piracy Sites; Chronicle of Higher Education, June 22, 2017
Clara Turnage, Chronicle of Higher Education; Elsevier Wins $15 Million in Copyright Suit Against Piracy Sites
"A federal court has ruled in favor of one of the world’s largest science publishers in its lawsuit against websites that provide free, pirated access to millions of scholarly-journal articles, Nature.com reported on Thursday.
In a judgment handed down this week, Judge Robert W. Sweet of the U.S. District Court in New York City ruled for the company, Elsevier, in the absence of any representatives of the defendants, which include Sci-Hub, LibGen, and related sites, and awarded the publisher $15 million in damages for copyright infringement."
"A federal court has ruled in favor of one of the world’s largest science publishers in its lawsuit against websites that provide free, pirated access to millions of scholarly-journal articles, Nature.com reported on Thursday.
In a judgment handed down this week, Judge Robert W. Sweet of the U.S. District Court in New York City ruled for the company, Elsevier, in the absence of any representatives of the defendants, which include Sci-Hub, LibGen, and related sites, and awarded the publisher $15 million in damages for copyright infringement."
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Paul Zukofsky, Prodigy Who Became, Uneasily, a Virtuoso Violinist, Dies at 73; New York Times, June 20, 2017
Margalit Fox, New York Times; Paul Zukofsky, Prodigy Who Became, Uneasily, a Virtuoso Violinist, Dies at 73
"He was also known to literary scholars as an ardent defender — too ardent, some said — of the intellectual property of his father, the American poet Louis Zukofsky...
Such behavior also colored Mr. Zukofsky’s guardianship of his father’s copyright. He denied some scholars the right to quote from Louis Zukofsky’s writings altogether. He granted others permission in exchange for payment — an unorthodox demand.
“I don’t think Paul knew anything at all about the academic world,” Mr. Quartermain said. “He was convinced that we were all busy making money on his father’s writings.”
In 2009, in an act that engendered astonishment and rage among scholars, Mr. Zukofsky escalated prevailing tensions by posting a manifesto on Z-site, the official online companion to Louis Zukofsky’s work. His manifesto — since removed — included these provisions:
• “You may not use LZ’s words as you see fit, as if you owned them, while you hide behind the rubric of ‘fair use.’ ”
• “For your own well-being, I urge you to not work on Louis Zukofsky, and prefer that you do not. Working on LZ will be far more trouble than it is worth.”
• “One line you may not cross i.e. never never ever tell me that your work is to be valued by me because it promotes my father. Doing that will earn my lifelong permanent enmity.”
Mr. Zukofsky made securing permission to quote his father so difficult, Mr. Quartermain said, that “I know of people who simply gave up” on Louis Zukofsky scholarship, “and one or two people who gave up on their academic careers, because they could not get anywhere: They’d done their Ph.D.’s and they wanted to publish, but they’d somehow offended Paul.”"
"He was also known to literary scholars as an ardent defender — too ardent, some said — of the intellectual property of his father, the American poet Louis Zukofsky...
Such behavior also colored Mr. Zukofsky’s guardianship of his father’s copyright. He denied some scholars the right to quote from Louis Zukofsky’s writings altogether. He granted others permission in exchange for payment — an unorthodox demand.
“I don’t think Paul knew anything at all about the academic world,” Mr. Quartermain said. “He was convinced that we were all busy making money on his father’s writings.”
In 2009, in an act that engendered astonishment and rage among scholars, Mr. Zukofsky escalated prevailing tensions by posting a manifesto on Z-site, the official online companion to Louis Zukofsky’s work. His manifesto — since removed — included these provisions:
• “You may not use LZ’s words as you see fit, as if you owned them, while you hide behind the rubric of ‘fair use.’ ”
• “For your own well-being, I urge you to not work on Louis Zukofsky, and prefer that you do not. Working on LZ will be far more trouble than it is worth.”
• “One line you may not cross i.e. never never ever tell me that your work is to be valued by me because it promotes my father. Doing that will earn my lifelong permanent enmity.”
Mr. Zukofsky made securing permission to quote his father so difficult, Mr. Quartermain said, that “I know of people who simply gave up” on Louis Zukofsky scholarship, “and one or two people who gave up on their academic careers, because they could not get anywhere: They’d done their Ph.D.’s and they wanted to publish, but they’d somehow offended Paul.”"
UM System announces plan to adopt open educational resources; Missourian, June 21, 2017
Gabriela Velasquez, Missourian; UM System announces plan to adopt open educational resources
"Open educational resources are published with open access copyrights, are free for students and can be distributed and used for little to no cost. Instructors also can write and add chapters to tailor textbooks to specific courses. They are accessed online, usually as PDFs, and can be revised and updated fairly quickly, according to previous Missourian reporting.
The UM System and MU will partner with OpenStax and with faculty members to develop open educational resources for students."
"Open educational resources are published with open access copyrights, are free for students and can be distributed and used for little to no cost. Instructors also can write and add chapters to tailor textbooks to specific courses. They are accessed online, usually as PDFs, and can be revised and updated fairly quickly, according to previous Missourian reporting.
The UM System and MU will partner with OpenStax and with faculty members to develop open educational resources for students."
4 Common Reasons for a Trademark Registration Refusal; JDSupra, June 22, 2017
Anderson Duff, JDSupra; 4 Common Reasons for a Trademark Registration Refusal
"When someone applies for a federal trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), it is possible for the trademark registration application to be refused. While this is often disappointing, it is possible to appeal a trademark registration refusal. An experienced trademark registration lawyer will be able to help you understand your trademark registration grounds for refusal and can help you try to overcome the refusal, either by providing evidence of secondary meaning associated with your trademark, or through the appeals process.
"When someone applies for a federal trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), it is possible for the trademark registration application to be refused. While this is often disappointing, it is possible to appeal a trademark registration refusal. An experienced trademark registration lawyer will be able to help you understand your trademark registration grounds for refusal and can help you try to overcome the refusal, either by providing evidence of secondary meaning associated with your trademark, or through the appeals process.
Most Common Grounds for Trademark Registration Refusal
There are several possible grounds for trademark registration refusal, which include:
- Likelihood of confusion with an existing registered trademark.
- The trademark is merely descriptive.
- The trademark is deceptively misdescriptive.
- The trademark is primarily merely a surname."
Patent Record Broken 2 Years in a Row; PittWire, June 21, 2017
PittWire; Patent Record Broken 2 Years in a Row
"Pitt innovators have been issued a total of 92 U.S. patents through May, already surpassing the previous record of 80...
"Pitt innovators have been issued a total of 92 U.S. patents through May, already surpassing the previous record of 80...
Along with the record-breaking fiscal year, in an overlapping measure of the University’s increasing strength in innovation, Pitt advanced into the top third of the Top 100 Worldwide Universities Granted U.S. Utility Patents Ranking for 2016.
Pitt moved up eight slots from last year to rank No. 27 — topping Duke University, Yale University and other top research institutions. The National Academy of Inventors and Intellectual Property Owners Association has published the ranking annually since 2013 to highlight the important role patents play in university research and innovation.
Those rankings are compiled by calculating the number of utility patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that list a university as the first assignee. Utility patents are issued for the invention of a new or improved useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and generally permit the owner to exclude others from making, using or selling the invention for a period of up to 20 years."
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Breaking: Gene Simmons Abandons Hand Gesture Trademark Application; Forbes, June 21, 2017
Ronald Abrams, Forbes; Breaking: Gene Simmons Abandons Hand Gesture Trademark Application
"Although images or stylized drawings of hand gestures can function and be registered as trademarks either by themselves or as part of a design mark, hand gestures in and of themselves cannot function as trademarks. And, even if they could, there would be no practical way to enforce the trademark against others (often referred to as “policing the mark”). Compounding the non-registerability of the “devil horn” hand gesture is the fact that the gesture means “I love you” in sign language.
"Although images or stylized drawings of hand gestures can function and be registered as trademarks either by themselves or as part of a design mark, hand gestures in and of themselves cannot function as trademarks. And, even if they could, there would be no practical way to enforce the trademark against others (often referred to as “policing the mark”). Compounding the non-registerability of the “devil horn” hand gesture is the fact that the gesture means “I love you” in sign language.
Now, less than two weeks later, Mr. Simmons has apparently reconsidered whether he might have valid trademark rights to the hand gesture, as he expressly abandoned the application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It is also noted that his application drew a fair amount of criticism from fellow musicians and others who saw the application as a shameless overreach by Simmons. Simmons, one of the most successful musician-entrepreneurs in history, owns a stable of other trademark registrations through his Gene Simmons Company. Nice try, Gene."
Current copyright regime makes entertainment industry boring; The Daily Texan, June 18, 2017
Usmaan Hasan, The Daily Texan; Current copyright regime makes entertainment industry boring
"The current system of copyright and intellectual property protections quells artistic expression gives consumers the short end of the stick.
"The current system of copyright and intellectual property protections quells artistic expression gives consumers the short end of the stick.
Mickey Mouse, as a property of Disney, enjoys bipartisan support in Congress. He was created in 1928, and under the existing copyright regime of the time, Disney’s right to Mickey should have ended in 1956 at the soonest, 1984 at the latest. Yet with some Disney magic, without fail, Congress expands copyright protections every time the Mickey is about to lapse into the public domain.
The hypocrisy coming from Disney is staggering. It has gained its immense wealth by monetizing properties in the public domain – like Cinderella, a centuries old fairy tale owned by no one – lobbying for copyright protections for those properties, and then reworking properties while constantly expanding the lifetime of their protections. It is a company that has managed to exercise artistic reinterpretation of cultural touchstones while making it nearly impossible for others to do the same. In fact, Disney has made its wealth by making movies on at least 50 works in the public domain."
Derogatory trademarks aren’t about free speech. They’re about discrimination.; Washington Post, June 21, 2017
Robert S. Chang, Washington Post; Derogatory trademarks aren’t about free speech. They’re about discrimination.
"Unfortunately, Reyna’s hypothetical is an actuality of sorts. In Florida and other states, gun store owners have placed signs on their establishments declaring themselves to be a “Muslim Free Zone.” As the owner of one of the stores, Florida Gun Supply, said: “My goal is to make sure they don’t feel welcome here so I don’t have the need to discriminate in the first place.
Following Matal v. Tam, nothing will prevent the owner from obtaining federal registration of “Muslim Free Zone” as a trademark, accomplishing through speech what he might not be able to do through direct denial of service. For businesses not covered by Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nothing will prevent the creation and federal registration of trademarks such as “No Gays Allowed” or, for that matter, “Whites Only.”
The federal government, though, should not be required to register these trademarks. The government should not be required to participate in discrimination.
This is where we are following the Supreme Court decision. This is the mischief that will come."
"Unfortunately, Reyna’s hypothetical is an actuality of sorts. In Florida and other states, gun store owners have placed signs on their establishments declaring themselves to be a “Muslim Free Zone.” As the owner of one of the stores, Florida Gun Supply, said: “My goal is to make sure they don’t feel welcome here so I don’t have the need to discriminate in the first place.
Following Matal v. Tam, nothing will prevent the owner from obtaining federal registration of “Muslim Free Zone” as a trademark, accomplishing through speech what he might not be able to do through direct denial of service. For businesses not covered by Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nothing will prevent the creation and federal registration of trademarks such as “No Gays Allowed” or, for that matter, “Whites Only.”
The federal government, though, should not be required to register these trademarks. The government should not be required to participate in discrimination.
This is where we are following the Supreme Court decision. This is the mischief that will come."
Without intellectual property licensing, where would we be?; CIO, June 19, 2017
Roger Kay, CIO; Without intellectual property licensing, where would we be?
"Intellectual property (IP) is a lot like taxes: you don’t care about the legal niceties until they apply to you. IP (not to be confused with the IP in TCP/IP, which stands for Internet Protocol) is the fuel that runs our information economy, the wellspring from which a thousand flowers bloom in the form of a plethora of products based on IP previously created, established, and licensed to all comers.
"Intellectual property (IP) is a lot like taxes: you don’t care about the legal niceties until they apply to you. IP (not to be confused with the IP in TCP/IP, which stands for Internet Protocol) is the fuel that runs our information economy, the wellspring from which a thousand flowers bloom in the form of a plethora of products based on IP previously created, established, and licensed to all comers.
When an inventor creates a valuable technology and patents it, there are two ways to go:
- exploit the technology directly and try to profit from being the sole supplier, or
- license it to anyone on a “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) basis and nurture an entire industry.
There are plenty of examples of both.
IP licensing can enable not just one company, but an entire industry."
APPLE VS. QUALCOMM: EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW; Digital Trends, June 20, 2017
Christian de Looper, Digital Trends, APPLE VS. QUALCOMM: EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW
"Update: We revised this post to reflect the content of Apple’s amended court filings, which allege that Qualcomm’s licensing practices are “illegal” and push back against Qualcomm’s counterclaims.
"Update: We revised this post to reflect the content of Apple’s amended court filings, which allege that Qualcomm’s licensing practices are “illegal” and push back against Qualcomm’s counterclaims.
Apple and Qualcomm are engaged in what will likely be a yearslong and epic battle. Following news that Qualcomm had been charging heightened royalties for use of its tech, as well as reports indicating Qualcomm required Apple to pay a percentage of the iPhone’s revenue in return for the use of Qualcomm patents, Apple has sued the company in three countries.
In the United States, Apple is suing Qualcomm for a hefty $1 billion — but it has also filed a lawsuit in China for $145 million, as well as in the United Kingdom. Now, Qualcomm is following with its own countersuit (but losing quite a bit of money).
Here’s everything you need to know about the lawsuit battle so far."
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Free Speech at the Supreme Court; New York Times, June 19, 2017
Editorial Board, New York Times; Free Speech at the Supreme Court
"The Supreme Court reaffirmed core free-speech principles in two cases on Monday, both decided without dissent...
"The Patent and Trademark Office rejected the name under a provision in a 70-year-old federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that “disparage” any “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.”
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the law violates a “bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” That’s the right call. The First Amendment bars the government from discriminating among speakers based on their viewpoints. In this case, the Trademark Office did that by blocking only registrations for trademarks it determined to have negative connotations. The free-speech clause doesn’t apply to the government’s own speech, but registered trademarks can’t be put in that category — otherwise the government would have to argue that it endorses each of the more than two million trademarks it has already registered.
The decision is likely to help the Washington Redskins, who lost their trademark protections in 2014 after years of complaints from Native American groups. At the time, this page supported the Trademark Office’s decision, and we still regard the Redskins name as offensive. Based on this case, however, we’ve since reconsidered our underlying position."
"The Supreme Court reaffirmed core free-speech principles in two cases on Monday, both decided without dissent...
"The Patent and Trademark Office rejected the name under a provision in a 70-year-old federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that “disparage” any “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.”
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the law violates a “bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” That’s the right call. The First Amendment bars the government from discriminating among speakers based on their viewpoints. In this case, the Trademark Office did that by blocking only registrations for trademarks it determined to have negative connotations. The free-speech clause doesn’t apply to the government’s own speech, but registered trademarks can’t be put in that category — otherwise the government would have to argue that it endorses each of the more than two million trademarks it has already registered.
The decision is likely to help the Washington Redskins, who lost their trademark protections in 2014 after years of complaints from Native American groups. At the time, this page supported the Trademark Office’s decision, and we still regard the Redskins name as offensive. Based on this case, however, we’ve since reconsidered our underlying position."
Criticized Team Names Get a Legal Lift, but the Price Could Be High; New York Times, June 19, 2017
Ken Belson, New York Times; Criticized Team Names Get a Legal Lift, but the Price Could Be High
"After years of mounting disapproval involving one of the N.F.L.’s most established and lucrative brands, the Redskins cheered the ruling, which the team most likely will use to seek the restoration of trademark protections the government took away in 2014 on the grounds the nickname was offensive.
“I am THRILLED!” the team’s owner, Dan Snyder, said in a statement. “Hail to the Redskins.”...
Still, while those who have resisted name changes might see a symbolic lift from the court, they will have to weigh whether keeping their names hurts their image or even their bottom line.
“What the Supreme Court has said is you don’t have to change your name if you don’t want to, because you can protect it with a federally protected trademark,” said Josh Schiller, a lawyer at Boies Schiller Flexner in New York who specializes in sports and media law. “But culturally, it is important to consider whether the name still offends people, and whether it will build good will around the mark.”"
"After years of mounting disapproval involving one of the N.F.L.’s most established and lucrative brands, the Redskins cheered the ruling, which the team most likely will use to seek the restoration of trademark protections the government took away in 2014 on the grounds the nickname was offensive.
“I am THRILLED!” the team’s owner, Dan Snyder, said in a statement. “Hail to the Redskins.”...
Still, while those who have resisted name changes might see a symbolic lift from the court, they will have to weigh whether keeping their names hurts their image or even their bottom line.
“What the Supreme Court has said is you don’t have to change your name if you don’t want to, because you can protect it with a federally protected trademark,” said Josh Schiller, a lawyer at Boies Schiller Flexner in New York who specializes in sports and media law. “But culturally, it is important to consider whether the name still offends people, and whether it will build good will around the mark.”"
Supreme Court turns down EFF’s “Dancing Baby” fair use case; Ars Technica, June 19, 2017
Joe Mullin, Ars Technica, Supreme Court turns down EFF’s “Dancing Baby” fair use case
"The Supreme Court has decided not to take up the case of Lenz v. Universal, a ten-year-old copyright lawsuit initiated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that helped determine the boundaries of "fair use."
"The Supreme Court has decided not to take up the case of Lenz v. Universal, a ten-year-old copyright lawsuit initiated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that helped determine the boundaries of "fair use."
Today's order leaves standing an earlier ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. EFF called that ruling a "strong precedent," while at the same time acknowledging it did not go far enough...
Now that the 9th Circuit precedent stands, EFF will have to decide whether or not it wants to push forward with a jury trial. The damages boundaries have already been set by earlier judicial decisions, so Lenz wouldn't be able to get more than "nominal" damages. That wouldn't be much, since her video was removed for only a couple weeks and has remained up since, garnering more than 1.9 million views.
EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry said she's disappointed the Supreme Court didn't take the case, since DMCA abuse is "well-documented and all too common."...
At the end of the day, the Lenz case is a clear demonstration that Section 512(f) of the DMCA, which allows for lawsuits and damages against copyright owners, is unlikely to ever be a powerful tool. From a user's perspective, it's hard to imagine what could be a more clear case of fair use than the Lenz video, which features less than 40 seconds of staticky-sounding background music. If copyright owners can say they satisfied the legal requirement by saying, "We considered fair use, but didn't see it," then not much can stop them from basically blowing off 512(f). Few future plaintiffs will be able to summon the legal resources that Lenz did."
Why the Supreme Court protects offensive trademarks but not Texas plates with Confederate flag; Dallas Morning News, June 19, 2017
Julieta Chiquillo, Dallas Morning News;
"When Alito struck down efforts to equate the Oregon case with the one in Texas, he highlighted three points:
Why the Supreme Court protects offensive trademarks but not Texas plates with Confederate flag
"When Alito struck down efforts to equate the Oregon case with the one in Texas, he highlighted three points:
First, license plates have long been used by states to convey messages. Second, license plates are usually identified with the state because they are considered a form of government ID, one that is manufactured by the state and generally designed by the state. Third, Texas "maintained direct control" of the messages in its plates.
"None of these factors are present in this case," Alito wrote in The Slants opinion."
Monday, June 19, 2017
The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech; Washington Post, June 19, 2017
Editorial Board, Washington Post; The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech
"THE UNITED STATES is engaged just now in a freewheeling debate about — freewheeling debate. Or, to put it more precisely, about how freewheeling debate should normally be. The struggle is being waged across various battlegrounds — college campuses, social media, New York theater, even the air-conditioned offices in which federal employees decide whether to protect trademarks, such as that of Washington’s National Football League franchise.
Now comes the Supreme Court with a strong statement in favor of free speech, to include speech that many find offensive. With the support of all eight justices who participated in the case (new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch being the exception), the court struck down a 71-year-old law requiring the Patent and Trademark Office to deny registration to brands that may “disparage” people or bring them “into contemp[t] or disrepute.” The ruling means that a dance-rock band may henceforth call itself “the Slants” on the same legal basis that, say, Mick Jagger’s bunch uses “the Rolling Stones” — even though many Asian Americans find the term derogatory and demeaning...
As the court’s decision reminds us, constitutional and decent are not the same thing."
"THE UNITED STATES is engaged just now in a freewheeling debate about — freewheeling debate. Or, to put it more precisely, about how freewheeling debate should normally be. The struggle is being waged across various battlegrounds — college campuses, social media, New York theater, even the air-conditioned offices in which federal employees decide whether to protect trademarks, such as that of Washington’s National Football League franchise.
Now comes the Supreme Court with a strong statement in favor of free speech, to include speech that many find offensive. With the support of all eight justices who participated in the case (new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch being the exception), the court struck down a 71-year-old law requiring the Patent and Trademark Office to deny registration to brands that may “disparage” people or bring them “into contemp[t] or disrepute.” The ruling means that a dance-rock band may henceforth call itself “the Slants” on the same legal basis that, say, Mick Jagger’s bunch uses “the Rolling Stones” — even though many Asian Americans find the term derogatory and demeaning...
As the court’s decision reminds us, constitutional and decent are not the same thing."
The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name In Trademark Dispute; NPR, June 19, 2017
Bill Chappell, NPR; The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name In Trademark Dispute
[Kip Currier: A big 8-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision for Asian American rock band The Slants today. I met The Slants at an April 27, 2017 event, hosted by Duquesne University's School of Law and Mary Pappert School of Music, discussing conflicting aspects of U.S. trademark law (specifically, the Lanham Act's provision addressing "disparaging trademarks") and the 1st Amendment and freedom of expression. Some photos I took at that event:]
"Members of the Asian-American rock band The Slants have the right to call themselves by a disparaging name, the Supreme Court says, in a ruling that could have broad impact on how the First Amendment is applied in other trademark cases."
[Kip Currier: A big 8-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision for Asian American rock band The Slants today. I met The Slants at an April 27, 2017 event, hosted by Duquesne University's School of Law and Mary Pappert School of Music, discussing conflicting aspects of U.S. trademark law (specifically, the Lanham Act's provision addressing "disparaging trademarks") and the 1st Amendment and freedom of expression. Some photos I took at that event:]
"Members of the Asian-American rock band The Slants have the right to call themselves by a disparaging name, the Supreme Court says, in a ruling that could have broad impact on how the First Amendment is applied in other trademark cases."
Amazon has a patent to keep you from comparison shopping while you’re in its stores; Washington Post, June 16, 2017
Brian Fung, Washington Post; Amazon has a patent to keep you from comparison shopping while you’re in its stores
"Amazon was awarded a patent May 30 that could help it choke off a common issue faced by many physical stores: Customers’ use of smartphones to compare prices even as they walk around a shop. The phenomenon, often known as mobile “window shopping,” has contributed to a worrisome decline for traditional retailers.
But Amazon now has the technology to prevent that type of behavior when customers enter any of its physical stores and log onto the WiFi networks there. Titled “Physical Store Online Shopping Control,” Amazon’s patent describes a system that can identify a customer’s Internet traffic and sense when the smartphone user is trying to access a competitor’s website. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos is also the owner of The Washington Post.)...
Just because a company wins a patent doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll use it. Sometimes companies file for patents to ensure they have the option to put the idea into practice later, or to keep other companies from implementing the concept. So, a system such as the kind Amazon’s envisioning might never be rolled out. And even if it is, chances are shoppers could still get around the system by staying off the in-store WiFi."
"Amazon was awarded a patent May 30 that could help it choke off a common issue faced by many physical stores: Customers’ use of smartphones to compare prices even as they walk around a shop. The phenomenon, often known as mobile “window shopping,” has contributed to a worrisome decline for traditional retailers.
But Amazon now has the technology to prevent that type of behavior when customers enter any of its physical stores and log onto the WiFi networks there. Titled “Physical Store Online Shopping Control,” Amazon’s patent describes a system that can identify a customer’s Internet traffic and sense when the smartphone user is trying to access a competitor’s website. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos is also the owner of The Washington Post.)...
Just because a company wins a patent doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll use it. Sometimes companies file for patents to ensure they have the option to put the idea into practice later, or to keep other companies from implementing the concept. So, a system such as the kind Amazon’s envisioning might never be rolled out. And even if it is, chances are shoppers could still get around the system by staying off the in-store WiFi."
114-year-old Taj Palace becomes first Indian building to get trademark; The Times of India, June 19, 2017
Reeba Zachariah & Vipashana V K, The Times of India; 114-year-old Taj Palace becomes first Indian building to get trademark
"MUMBAI: The iconic Taj Mahal Palace in Mumbai has just got itself trademarked. This makes the 114-year-old building the first in the country to get such a registration. The hotel, which has been a defining structure of Mumbai's skyline, has joined the elite and small club of trademarked properties in the world which includes the Empire State Building in New York, the Eiffel Tower in Paris and Sydney Opera House.
"MUMBAI: The iconic Taj Mahal Palace in Mumbai has just got itself trademarked. This makes the 114-year-old building the first in the country to get such a registration. The hotel, which has been a defining structure of Mumbai's skyline, has joined the elite and small club of trademarked properties in the world which includes the Empire State Building in New York, the Eiffel Tower in Paris and Sydney Opera House.
Usually, logos, brand names, combination of colours, numerals and even sounds are trademarked but the registration of an architectural design has never been attempted since the Trademark Act came into force in 1999."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)