Selling a patent doesn’t extend its limited life. Allergan, Inc. owned the patents for Restasis which treats severe dry eyes by producing tears. The terms of the patents were about to expire. So, Allergan “sold“ the patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and who then licensed all of the rights relating to the patents back for millions in upfront and annual royalties. In an IPR between Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Allergan, the Tribe unsuccessfully tried to dismiss the proceedings based on sovereign immunity. The PTAB’s decision had several important points which all seemed to spring from the PTAB’s view that any rights the Tribe had were “illusory”. First, it held that Allergan’s exclusive rights to the patent under the license from the Tribe were irrevocable and lasted only until the patents expired or are invalidated. Second, since Allergan retained the right to sue, the Tribe had no interest in the proceedings. Third, sovereign immunity is not a defense to IPR proceedings.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Unlike other types of IP, patents depend upon governmental sanctions in order to exist. The patent gives the owner the right to exclude others from practicing the patent for 20 years. After that, the patent goes into the public domain. Once in the public domain, generic drug manufacturers can manufacture and sell the same pharmaceutical at lower prices. This, of course, poses a problem for the owners of patents like Allergan who would like nothing more than to extend their exclusive rights for longer than 20 years. Allergan and the Tribe tried a tricky maneuver to get around the limited life of a patent. It doesn’t appear to be working.
You own your domain name, right? Maybe not. While working for the law firm, Trowbridge Sidoti LLP, attorney, Kim Taylor, registered a large number of domain names for the firm, including SyndicationLawyers.com. She registered them in her own name instead of the firm’s, even though they were going to be used by the firm. After she left the firm, Kim refused to transfer the domain names claiming she owned them. Trowbridge Sidoti sued. After 10 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict against Taylor with respect to all of the domain names. The jury found that Taylor’s actions only caused harm with respect to the SyndicationLawyers.com domain name and awarded $7,800.00 in damages.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. This scenario is not that unusual. An employee or independent contractor is given the task of registering domain names for a company. Wittingly or unwittingly, the employee or independent contractor registers the domain name in their own name. When the relationship is severed, the company finds out that it doesn’t own its own domain name. Getting the domain name transferred to the company becomes an issue if the parties didn’t part on good terms. As this case proves, it even happens to lawyers.
Agreeing to assign a patent in the future isn’t an assignment at all. Three co-inventors of a patent were employed by Company A. The co-inventors signed an employment agreement stating they “will assign” their rights to any patentable invention they created during their employment. Company A transferred its assets to Company B. Only two of the inventors assigned their patent rights to Company B. Based upon the employment agreement between the original company and the third inventor, the USPTO allowed Company B to prosecute the patent without the third inventor actually assigning the patent. Company B dissolved and its assets were transferred to Advanced Video Techs, LLC. Advanced Video then brought a patent infringement suit against HTC Corp. The district court dismissed the case holding that Advanced Video didn’t have standing to bring a patent infringement suit without joining the non-assigning inventor in the suit. On appeal, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision that Advanced Video didn’t have standing. The Federal Circuit reasoned that the agreement to assign something in the future, is not an assignment. The third co-inventor only promised to assign a future patent so she still had part ownership of the patent and had to be a party to the infringement suit.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Inventors hold the rights to a patentable invention until those rights are assigned. Over the years, employment agreements contemplated that employee-inventors would always be innovating and there’s no way to anticipate which inventions will be patented. So a lot of employment agreements have the employee agree to assign inventions to the employer in the future. According to this decision, just having an agreement to assign something in the future, isn’t a present assignment. So what’s an employer to do? A two prong approach may be required. First, instead of a future assignment, have the employee make a present assignment of all Intellectual Property rights. Second, decide at what point in the research and development process, the employee will assign his or her patent in a particular invention and then follow through with it. One thing that the decision didn’t seem to address is whether the employer would have a cause of action against the employee who breached the employment agreement by failing to assign the patent as agreed.
Embedding a Twitter photo can be copyright infringement. It all started when Justin Goldman took photos of Tom Brady and posted them on Snapchat. Content on Snapchat is supposed to disappear after a while. These photos didn’t. Instead, the photos ended up being reposted on various social media sites, including Twitter. Some media outlets then embedded the third party tweets with the photos in articles on their respective websites. Goldman filed suit against the media outlets for copyright infringement. The defendants brought a motion to dismiss arguing that they aren’t liable because they were protected under the “Server Test”. The Server Test says that images generated by a search engine, like Google, aren’t copyright infringement because search engines don’t store images. The court denied the motion. This wasn’t a case of linking to the origin of the photos. The defendants actively embedded the images which were immediately available upon opening the offending webpage.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. For now, this case is considered an outlier. But since it’s out there, the best practice is to use extreme caution. The web is full of great content, especially photographs. But there’s a line between linking (which is ok) and embedding without permission (which isn’t ok).
Advertising a discount that disappears at point of purchase is a problem. A customer of Hobby Lobby, wanted to buy a picture frame. She believed she was getting a 50 percent discount on a photo frame due to an in-store sign stating "Photo Frames 50% OFF the Marked price.” Hobby Lobby didn’t honor the discount but instead pointed to disclaimer language that said, "DISCOUNTS PROVIDED EVERY DAY; MARKED PRICES REFLECT GENERAL U.S. MARKET VALUE FOR SIMILAR PRODUCTS." The customer brought a class action suit based on false advertising as well as other causes of action. Hobby Lobby’s motion to dismiss was denied. The court held that a reasonable consumer could have been misled despite the disclaimer language. So the suit will proceed.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. This is just one example of recent cases and settlements involving phantom discounts. Federal Trade Commission regulations and state laws govern advertising. The basics of proper advertising are pretty standard. Don’t use unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. Advertising a price or a discount and then not honoring it falls squarely within prohibited conduct. Hobby Lobby’s disclaimer language didn’t excuse it from complying with the advertising rules.
Tequila and cigars go together like love and marriage; or maybe not. El Galan Inc. tried to register the word “Ternura” for a brand of cigars. The USPTO refused registration because Don Francisco Spirits LLC had already registered the same word for tequila. The USPTO said that the two products are “related”, meaning that they are complementary and linked in the minds of consumers. El Galan appealed to the TTAB. The TTAB affirmed the refusal. The TTAB reached back into history and cited a 1955 ruling by the Fifth Circuit in favor of the famous Scotch whiskey brand, Johnnie Walker, against a company that wanted to use the name for cigars. Because, after all, everyone connects whiskey and cigars. So according to the USPTO and the TTAB, the same is true for tequila and cigars. The TTAB pulled back a little by saying that the opinion should not be interpreted to mean that cigars and alcoholic beverages will always be considered related.
**WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. ** Frankly, this ruling is a stretch. Alcohol and tobacco don’t always go together in the minds of the consuming public. This is the problem with the “relatedness” argument that can form the basis of a refusal to register. There should be some limit on a refusal to register when the same mark is being used for goods or services that don’t actually compete with each other.
Software can have lots of layers like an onion which can be trouble for an infringement lawsuit. In CSS, Inc. v. Herrington, CSS complained that the defendants infringed on three of its copyrighted software programs. The programs were made up of a lot of different components, including third party software and abstract ideas. The court’s opinion peeled the layers of CSS’s software onions to get to the decision. First, the court peeled off the function that each program performed because they were "ideas" of the programs and not their expression. Then the court peeled away the client/server architecture used by each of the programs because that was non-copyrightable industry-standard. Next came the third party components because they didn’t belong to either party. Next came the arrangement of the third party components didn’t have enough creativity for copyright protection. Then the court peeled away the layer that was the name/address algorithm because it was unoriginal and not copyrightable. Once the court got to the small onion core of protectable software that was left, the court held that CSS didn’t prove substantially similarity between CSS’s onion core and the defendants’ onion core. CSS may have had something that was protectable, but after peeling away the uncopyrightable components of its software it couldn’t prove infringement.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. This opinion is a good road map for any pre-litigation due diligence involving software copyright infringement.
With March Madness upon us, we must remember its bumpy trademark road. March Madness is the uber-famous trademark of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s championship basketball tournament. But the NCAA was not the first to use the trademark. The Illinois High School Association was. The IHSA unsuccessfully tried to stop the NCAA from using it. The court held that both had the right to use the name. Eventually, the NCAA acquired the IHSA’s rights. Once the NCAA acquired the rights, it aggressively protected the trademark. The NCAA has been able to squelch the unlicensed use of the trademark and anything that comes perilously close such as “April Madness” (for entertainment service), “Markdown Madness” (for auto sales services), “Skate Madness” (for skateboarding competitions) and “Freestyle Madness” (for various entertainment services).
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. It’s so tempting to use “March Madness” in an ad campaign to bring in business; especially at the retail and food industry. But to do so, a business has to be ready to pay the hefty license fees demanded by the NCAA or face the NCAA’s wrath. As the owner of the trademark, the NCAA can protect its trademark from any use that would be likely to cause customer confusion about the source or sponsorship of the product or service. And because the trademark is famous, the NCAA can protect against any use that might dilute its brand. Even if the use has nothing to do with a basketball championship.
Similar trademarks don’t necessarily result in a likelihood of confusion. Two recent decisions considered whether similar trademarks can coexist without causing customer confusion. In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Kia Motors America Inc., Allstate argued that Kia’s “Drive Wise” brand infringed on its “Drivewise” trademark. Kia’s product was a high end add-on for Kia’s cars. Allstate’s product was a program to reward safe driving by its insurance customers. The court held that the goods offered by the parties were not identical or even related. Customers who wanted an add-on for their car would not be confused by similar words used for an insurance company’s safe driving incentive. And the reverse would be true as well. Another case involved a similar set of facts and came out the same way. In Destileria Serralles Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Donq DBA Donq Co. Ltd., the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that a Kabushiki’s Japanese bakery chain named “Donq” was not confusingly similar to Destileria’s rum brand “Don Q”. Destileria argued that many brands of liquor cross over into other types of goods and so there would be “overlap” in the minds of the consuming public. The TTAB rejected the argument because Destileria’s brand is marginally famous and purchasers would be less likely to expect expansion into other goods.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The goods offered by trademark owners need not be identical or even competitive for a customer to be confused. Even if the goods really have nothing to do with each other. The operative question is whether consumers would assume the different goods would have the same origin. In these two cases, the adjudicating body found that the goods weren’t related enough to cause overlap in the minds of customers.
Trade secrets can be an asset in a divorce. Donald Bailey and his ex-wife, Geraldine Bailey, were in the midst of a very messy divorce. As part of the proceedings, Geraldine wanted to determine the value of their marital assets. So Geraldine’s law firm sought discovery against Donald’s two companies, Zegato Solutions Inc. and Aldmyr Systems, Inc. The two companies had trade secrets that were worth about $350 million, according to Donald. Donald then brought a suit against the attorneys claiming that they stole and copied the trade secrets. Dismissal of the suit was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit agreed with the lower court that the law firm was entitled to explore Donald’s assets on behalf of Geraldine.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. When a couple decides to cut ties with each other, a host of issues are involved. One of the primary issues is who gets what from the assets that the couple acquired during the marriage. In this case, the court had to balance Donald’s companies’ right to protect their trade secrets and Geraldine’s right to know the value of Donald’s assets. Since access to the trade secrets had nothing to do with actually using them, Geraldine’s right to discovery won.
Website framing can be copyright infringement. “Framing” is the display of content on a website that is independent of the original content creator. In Leader’s Institute LLC v. Jackson, Robert Jackson left Leader’s Institute to work for a competitor, Magnovo Training Group. Leader’s Institute sued claiming misappropriation of trade secrets and trademark infringement. Magnovo brought a counterclaim alleging that Leader’s Institute had committed copyright infringement by framing Magnovo’s copyrighted content on Leader’s Institute’s website. The court granted partial summary judgment to Magnovo on the copyright infringement claim. The court held that programming its website to display Magnovo’s copyrighted works is considered an unauthorized public display of a work of authorship under Copyright Law.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Many websites are designed to provide access to another’s website content. In some cases, it can be done without resulting in copyright infringement. For instance, a hyperlink that directs the user to the original website is probably ok. But in this case, Leader’s Institute did more. It programmed its website to incorporate the copyrighted work belonging to its competitor. Leader’s Institute was held to have infringed by an act of public display through an automated process.
A trademark can’t block competitors from using descriptive words. Attorney, Candace L. Moon, wanted to become the “on-stop shop” for the legal issues in the craft beer industry. So she tried to register “The Craft Beer Attorney APC” as a trademark. The uproar from other attorneys was deafening. No less than 10 other law firms filed oppositions to registration of the trademark. They argued that the words “Craft Beer Attorney” were generic because other attorneys need to use those words to describe their services. One firm wrote: “Such use is and would be in derogation and violation of the First Amendment rights of third parties, who have a bona fide need to use such a generic term or phrase to accurately describe and reference their own similar services.” Candace withdrew her application and the TTAB entered judgment in favor of the opposers.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Candace’s experience is a good example of the problems with choosing a descriptive mark. Candace had a bright idea to brand herself by describing her services. But, her competitors needed to use those words to describe their services too.
You don’t need an Oracle to predict the outcome of working outside the scope of a license. Rimini Street, Inc. was hired by one of Oracle USA, Inc.’s licensees to develop and test updates for the licensee’s customers. But Rimini started using Oracle’s software to develop products for its other clients who didn’t have a license from Oracle. Oracle sued and won a copyright infringement judgment. Rimini appealed and lost at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Rimini had two interesting affirmative defenses that were rejected by the court. First, Rimini said it had an express license. While it had an express license with respect to a single licensee, it didn’t have a blanket express license to use the software for anyone else. Second, Rimini argued that Oracle was misusing the copyright. Copyright misuse is an equitable defense against copyright infringement allowing copyright infringers to avoid infringement liability if the copyright holder has engaged in abusive or improper conduct in exploiting or enforcing the copyright. In other words, Rimini was accusing Oracle of being a copyright bully because Oracle wasn’t allowing Rimini to get a head start with Oracle’s future software licensees. The court rejected this argument. As the owner of the software, Oracle had every right to control the use of its software by potential future licensees.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Rimini had an uphill battle. It went beyond the scope of a license. And Rimini’s copyright misuse argument was misguided. Classic copyright misuse involves elements of fraud and extortion. Oracle wasn’t doing that. It was only protecting its software in a specific case. That isn’t copyright misuse.
If you want a patent, be careful about when you make your first sale. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. applied to patent a formula that would reduce nausea and vomiting resulting from chemotherapy. When it sued Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. for patent infringement, Teva argued that the patent was barred because Helsinn sold the formula more than a year before it applied for the patent. The Patent Act bars the patentability of an “invention [that] was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” An invention is made available to the public when there is a commercial offer or contract to sell a product embodying the invention and that sale is made public. There was no question that Helsinn had entered into a distribution agreement more than a year before the patent application. So the issue was whether the agreement between Helsinn and its distributor was a “sale” which would bar the patent. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the sale to the distributor qualified as a commercial sale that would bar the application.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Although this case involves big pharma, every inventor can benefit from Helsinn’s sad experience. There is some discussion among the Patent Bar as to whether making the sale “confidential” would mean the sale wasn’t “commercial”. But it may not be an easy fix. The issue involves an analysis of both commercial law as well as patent law. To be safe, a first sale shouldn’t take place before the patent application is filed. Failing that, advice of counsel is absolutely necessary.
The USPTO can no longer ban scandalous and immoral trademarks. Erik Brunetti wanted to register the word “FUCT” for his apparel line. The USPTO refused registration because the word sounded like a swear word. Erik appealed to the Federal Circuit. The appeals court overturned the ruling saying that the government’s rule against registering profane, sexual and otherwise objectionable language violates the First Amendment. Acknowledging that the government didn’t have a substantial interest in policing offensive speech, the Federal Circuit opined that the First Amendment “protects private expression, even private expression which is offensive to a substantial composite of the general public.”
**WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. ** With this decision and the decision in the Slants case (“Bleeping Trademarks” Blawg post of 1/12/2016 and 3/29/2016), the courts have drawn the line in the sand regarding trademark choice. The USPTO is being told not to determine registrability of trademarks based upon whether something is offensive to a certain segment of the population. But the impression a trademark makes is very subjective. A trademark should always take the potential consuming audience into account. In this case, Erik’s market is the skateboarding crowd. To them, the jokey and offensive nature of the mark might be a good selling point. However, the same may not be true if Erik’s market was a more a sedate one, like banking for instance.
Welcome to the Second Annual Crippys. The Crippys are awarded to those who achieved infamy by committing Intellectual Property crimes during the previous year. In other words, an IP Criminals Hall of Fame. The field of candidates was crowded last year. But the award winners rose to the top. The 2017 Crippys go to:
Second Runner Up Crippy Goes to David Nosel: David was an executive with Korn/Ferry International. After he left, his ex-assistant gave him a password with which he could access his former employer’s computer system. He used the password to hack into the system and steal trade secrets. David’s conviction for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The CFAA criminalizes accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorization to obtain anything of value from a protected computer. David argued that it wasn’t hacking because he had a valid password. Somehow, David missed the point. David didn’t have authorization to use the password. So his actions fell squarely within the prohibited acts in the CFFA.
First Runner Up Crippy Goes to Walid Jamil: Walid pled guilty to conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and conspiracy to introduce misbranded food into interstate commerce. A predecessor of Walid’s company, Midwest Wholesale Distributors, was a legitimate exporter of the 5-Hour Energy drink to Mexico. Jamil and his cohorts replaced the Spanish labels with fake English ones so they could sell to the U.S. market. When the stock ran out, Walid switched to fully counterfeit drinks made in a filthy factory. He distributed more than 4 million bottles putting the health of millions of customers into jeopardy. And if that weren’t enough, Walid is also alleged to have been involved in similar schemes involving Equal, Splenda, Truvia, Uncle Ben’s Rice and Pillsbury products. Walid has been sentenced to 7 years in jail plus payment of criminal restitution in the amount of $555,800.00. Walid wins this award for shear audacity and tenacity. He’ll need those skills in prison.
Grand Prize Crippy Goes to Gregory David Justice: Gregory (whose last name has a good sense of irony), a former employee of a defense contractor, pled guilty to one count of economic espionage and one count of attempting to violate the Arms Export Control Act. He tried to sell information about his (now former) employer’s satellite security systems which included trade secrets. Unfortunately for Gregory, he offered the sale to an undercover agent who was posing as a Russian spy. He told the ersatz Russian spy that he loved spy movies and television shows like “Jason Bourne” and “James Bond” and “The Americans”. He sold the secrets for $3,500.00 telling the undercover agent that he needed it for his wife’s medical expenses. Actually, he sent the money to his on-line girlfriend, an alleged European model named Chay. Actually, the “girlfriend” wasn’t named Chay nor was she a model. She was some woman who lived in Florida with her boyfriend and son. Gregory was sentenced to 60 months in jail. U.S. Attorney Sandra R. Brown said, “This defendant sold out his employer and betrayed his country in exchange for a few thousand dollars. His actions posed an imminent threat to our national security.”
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Criminal Intellectual Property activity is no laughing matter. Those who criminally interfere with the Intellectual Property of others cause damage, endanger public health and harm national security. They justly face jail time and fines. So no one should strive to be awarded a Crippy for 2018.
Dr. Seuss’ Estate doesn’t have the Christmas spirit. Matthew Lombardo wrote a play called “Who’s Holiday”. It’s a sort of sequel to Dr. Seuss’ “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” in which Cindy-Lou Who is all grown up and has issues. Dr. Seuss’ estate is aggressive about protecting the original works (See more below). So, of course, the Estate sued for copyright infringement to block Who’s Holiday. The Estate lost. The court held that “Who’s Holiday” falls squarely within the defense of fair use. Using the four prong fair use test, the court found that the nature of the use was obviously parody and weighs in favor of fair use. “The play subverts the expectations of the Seussian genre, and lampoons the Grinch by making Cindy-Lou's naiveté, Who-Ville's endlessly-smiling, problem-free citizens and Dr. Seuss' rhyming innocence all appear ridiculous. . .” The court found the second prong, the nature of the original work, didn’t play a big role in the analysis. For the third prong, the court held that parody gives a long leash to quote and refer to the original. Even though Who’s Holiday used a substantial amount of the original work, it was not excessive in relation to the purpose of parody. The fourth prong determines whether the alleged infringing work supplants the market for the original. The court found that there was virtually no possibility that someone looking to buy a children’s book would buy tickets to an adult themed play about one of the characters instead.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. As you may remember, Dr. Seuss’ Estate sued ComicMix for copyright infringement. ComicMix had started a Kickstarter campaign to fund the development of a comic mashup between Dr. Seuss’ “Oh, the Places You’ll Go” and Star Trek titled “Oh the Places You’ll Boldly Go.” The Estate’s first complaint was dismissed. (June 27, 2017, “Horton Hears a Vulcan”). The Estate amended its complaint and just defeated a motion to dismiss by ComicMix. So ComicMix’s mission to boldly go to fair use places continues.
Happy Holidays and see you next year with more IP News for Business.
Unraveling an ugly holiday sweater Google search could create potential liability. Google AdWords is an advertising service offered by Google that allows a sponsor to pay for advertising and a website link to appear prominently. A problem arose when Ugly Christmas Sweater, Inc. used Tipsy Elves, LLC’s name in its Google AdWords. Tipsy Elves sued Ugly Christmas Sweater for trademark infringement and other related causes of action. Tipsy Elves had a slippery hill to climb to prove its case. The vast majority of trademark infringement cases involving Google AdWords come out against the plaintiff. It appears that the parties settled their differences and Tipsy Elves dismissed its case. Ugly Christmas Sweaters’ Google AdWords no longer come up in a Google search of Tipsy Elves.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Google AdWords creates an opportunity for competitive advertising that might not be available in any other medium. Pursuing ad words for trademark infringement has problems, so far. Yet it shouldn’t chill pursuing the issue as the courts knit a remedy for sponsored misleading search engine results.
This post is in honor of Golan Christie Taglia LLP’s first annual Ugly Holiday Outfit Contest which is coming up on December 15, 2017. The photo shows GCT associate, Anthony J. D’Agostino, modeling his contest entry.
Be careful not to control someone else’s infringing activities. Barcroft Media Ltd. provides a video and image library available for download. Photographer, Jeffrey R. Werner, filed suit against Barcroft alleging that it allowed Valnet Inc. to download his photos without his consent. Jeffrey alleged that Barcroft materially contributed to Valnet’s infringement by granting Valnet a retroactive license. Barcroft brought a motion to dismiss arguing that Jeffrey didn’t state a claim. The court denied the motion deciding that Jeffrey stated a claim for vicarious liability and contributory infringement. Although the court expressed some doubt as to whether Jeffery’s going to be able to prove the facts to support his case.
**WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. ** A party that is one step removed from infringing activity can get caught in the litigation net under two theories of secondary liability. One type is vicarious liability which has two elements: (1) the right and ability to supervise or control the infringing activity; and (2) a direct financial benefit from that activity. The other type is "contributory infringement" in which one induces, causes or materially contributes to copyright infringement. To avoid secondary liability, it’s always best to step away and not enable potential copyright infringement.
Submitting an idea doesn’t mean you own it. Author, Dan Rosen, had a screenplay called “Darci’s Walk of Fame”. For those who are not ‘in the know’, the standard elements of a walk of shame are: (1) a one night stand; (2) waking up the next morning in someone else’s bed; and (3) having to walk (or taxi or Uber or Lyft) home in the clothes you wore the night before. Dan was lucky to get a meeting with actress and producer, Elizabeth Banks and her husband to present his screenplay. After discussing the plot line, characters, and themes, Banks and her husband took a pass. Not long after the meeting, Banks starred in the 2014 movie “Walk of Shame” which wasn’t exactly a box office hit. Dan’s assignee, Shame on You Productions, Inc. sued Banks, her husband, and the film’s production based on copyright infringement and an implied contract. The court applied the extrinsic test to determine if infringement occurred. The extrinsic test focuses on specific similarities between two works. Scenes a faire (standard situations that flow naturally from the plot) are disregarded. The two works shared the “walk of shame” premise and some natural elements that flowed from it, but the narratives and characters were different. Shame on You’s case was dismissed and affirmed on appeal.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. When Dan submitted his idea to Banks and her husband, he believed that his idea would belong to him. But, an idea alone is not protectable by copyright. Only the expression of the idea is. This is a prime example of the problem with idea submission cases. When submitting ideas, there’s a Catch 22. It’s best to make sure that proper protections are in place. But anyone in an industry that is prone to idea submissions is reticent about accepting any unsolicited ideas or signing any idea protection documents such as non-disclosure agreements.
Trade secrets are a good way to protect a recipe. Sycamore Family Bakery Inc. sold its assets to Bimbo Bakeries USA. Included in the assets was Sycamore’s secret recipe for Grandma Sycamore’s Home-Maid Bread. When Leland Sycamore went to work for US Bakery, US Bakery started selling bread made from the same recipe. US Bakery also mimicked Bimbo’s packaging. Bimbo sued for trade secret misappropriation and false advertising. A jury awarded Bimbo $2 million.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. There are two primary lessons here. First, a properly protected trade secret has a lot of value. Trade secrets are pretty much the only way to protect a recipe. Second, when you sell your trade secret, you can’t use it anymore.
A licensee can’t knock out a confusingly similar trademark. Julie A. Moreno licensed the Mexican trademark, DEPORTES CASANOVA, for sports equipment. Julie challenged Pro Boxing Supplies, Inc.’s trademark applications and registrations for CASANOVA due to a likelihood of confusion. The TTAB denied Julie’s petitions. While this looked like a priority of use problem, the real problem was that a licensee and not the owner/licensor was claiming priority of use. The TTAB ruled against Julie because: “Allowing a licensee to claim priority for itself in an inter parties proceeding based on the licensor’s use of the mark (whether through the license or otherwise), could result in a licensee being able to claim de facto ownership of the licensed mark.”
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. This was a case of first impression for the Board. The Board had dealt with many cases in which the owner and its licensee jointly enforce the trademarks. But this was the first time the Board had to address whether a licensee alone had standing to enforce a licensor’s trademark rights. The Board said no. So a licensee should always insist that a trademark license either require the owner to challenge confusingly similar marks or join with the licensee to do so.
A banana costume could infringe on a banana costume. If you bought a banana costume for Halloween today, you may have purchased a copyright infringing product. Rasta Imposta sued Kmart for selling alleged knockoffs of Rasta Imposta’s banana costume. Costumes are generally considered clothing which are useful articles and can’t be copyrighted (Whimiscality, Inc. v. Rubie’s Costumes which held a child’s pumpkin costume could not be copyrighted). But masks can be copyrighted because they aren’t considered useful articles. (Masquerade Novelty v. Unique Industries which held that animal nose masks can be copyrighted). But would a banana costume be considered clothing and not copyrightable? We’re going to have to live in limbo because Rasta Imposta and Kmart settled.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Happy Halloween.
We celebrate the premier of Season 2 of Netflix’s hit horror series, Stranger Things, with a not-so-spooky cease and desist letter. The popularity of Stranger Things seeped into the culture. So much so, that in August 2017, Chicago-based Emporium Arcade Bar opened a pop-up location called “The Upside Down” which was designed to look like the sets from the series. The only problem was that they didn’t get permission from Netflix. Netflix’s in-house lawyers sent a cease and desist letter. Netflix took an even-tempered, but effective, approach. The letter could be summarized but it’s much better to see it in its entirety:
"Danny and Doug,
My walkie talkie is busted so I had to write this note instead. I heard you launched a Stranger Things pop-up bar at your Logan Square location. Look, I don’t want you to think I’m a total wastoid, and I love how much you guys love the show. (Just wait until you see Season 2!) But unless I’m living in the Upside Down, I don’t think we did a deal with you for this pop-up. You’re obviously creative types, so I’m sure you can appreciate that it’s important to us to have a say in how our fans encounter the worlds we build.
We’re not going to go full Dr. Brenner on you, but we ask that you please (1) not extend the pop-up beyond its 6 week run ending in September, and (2) reach out to us for permission if you plan to do something like this again. Let me know as soon as possible that you agree to these requests.
We love our fans more than anything, but you should know the Demogorgon is not always as forgiving. So please don’t make us call your mom."
The bar owners cooperated and closed down as planned.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Owners have a right to shut down infringement of their Intellectual Property. Sending a cease and desist letter to the infringer is a first step. But cease and desist letters come in all shapes and sizes. An aggressive letter may be appropriate for stopping an infringing competitor. But not so much when dealing with a small company who might have infringed unintentionally. Netflix received a lot of good press for its handling of the Stranger Things pop-up bar. It got the point across without hurting the bar’s owners and alienating the fan base.
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 can go nuclear to stop misappropriation. The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”), which created a federal cause of action for misappropriation, has one amazing feature that’s new to trade secret litigation. It allows the court to order seizure of stolen trade secrets in “extraordinary circumstances” without advance notice. This has been called the “nuclear option”. Because it’s a draconian remedy, courts have been reluctant to enter seizure orders. The recent case of Mission Capital Advisors LLC v. Romaka, gives a clue for determining extraordinary circumstances. According to court documents, Romaka had downloaded Mission Capital’s entire 65,000 person client list while he was receiving employment offers from Mission Capital’s competitors. In granting an order for seizure, the court cited Romaka’s activities such as downloading the files while he was absent from work for several weeks; he said that he deleted the files, when he hadn’t; and he had downloaded other proprietary information and stored it on his computer. Although Romaka was cooperative originally, he didn’t respond to Mission Capital’s attempts to contact him. The court ordered U.S. Marshalls to go to his home, make a forensic copy of his computer and then permanently delete the files.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The DTSA nuclear option cannot be invoked in every case. The "nuclear option" in the guise of a seizure order is still being explored by litigants and the courts. But, the Mission Capital test may help shape the appropriateness of the remedy.