Beverly A. Berneman
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.
Beverly A. Berneman
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.
Andrew S. Williams
Many of us have believed that every ERISA plan must have both a plan document and a summary plan description (“SPD”). An SPD is required for all ERISA plans in order to explain them in plain English. ERISA also requires subject plans to have a “written instrument” and it is the usual practice, for retirement plans in particular, to have both a plan document and an SPD.
In the absence of a separate plan document, can a plan’s SPD itself also satisfy the ERISA “written instrument” requirement? A recent decision of the Firth Circuit Court of Appeals (Rhea v. Alan Ritchey, Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan) says yes.
Because many insured group health plans have no documentation other than an SPD, this decision may provide a defense to employers who are sued because their group health and other welfare plans are documented only by an SPD and, therefore, are alleged to fail to meet ERISA’s so-called “plan document” requirement.
In reaching its decision in Rhea, the Fifth Circuit rejected arguments that the defendant’s SPD was deficient because it referenced a separate, non-existent “plan document.” The Court also found that the SPD’s short hand description of procedures for amending the plan and its funding arrangement satisfied applicable ERISA requirements.
Although the decision in Rhea recognizes the reality that most sponsors of insured group health plans do not have a separate plan document, note that many of those plans do not even have an SPD. This is because their insurance company has provided only an insurance company “certificate of coverage.” That type of documentation as well as SPDs that lack all the required provisions are not covered by the decision of the Court in Rhea.
Sponsors of insured group health plans with only an SPD and not a separate plan document can relax – but only if their SPD’s satisfy the applicable ERISA “written instrument” requirements. Also bear in mind that there are other reasons to have a separate plan document. SPDs are prepared by insurance companies and may not include optional provisions that plan sponsors frequently include in separate plan documents. Also, more employers are adopting “wrap plan” documents that consolidate all of their welfare benefits such as group health, group life and group disability plans into a single plan to allow ERISA annual reporting on just one Form 5500.
Beverly A. Berneman
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.