Website framing can be copyright infringement. %CUT% “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.

Nick Saban is the highest paid college football coach in the country. In 2017, he was reportedly paid $11 million by the University of Alabama. If he is paid that amount in 2018, the recently passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Act”) will impose an excise tax on Alabama, his employer, of over $2 million!

A trademark can’t block competitors from using descriptive words. %CUT% 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.

You don’t need an Oracle to predict the outcome of working outside the scope of a license. %CUT% 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.

If you want a patent, be careful about when you make your first sale. %CUT% 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.

The USPTO can no longer ban scandalous and immoral trademarks. %CUT% 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.”

Your retirement plan may have an outside third party administrator (TPA) to assist with plan administration. However, a TPA typically is not a fiduciary to the plan and does not act as “plan administrator” (that’s usually the employer itself as provided in a typical TPA services agreement). This leaves the employer ultimately responsible for the plan’s compliance with all applicable legal requirements. So, even if your TPA makes a mistake, the employer is likely on the hook for any resulting liability because the TPA’s services agreement usually imposes damage limits and employer indemnities that protect the TPA.

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:%CUT%

Dr. Seuss’ Estate doesn’t have the Christmas spirit. %CUT% 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.

Unraveling an ugly holiday sweater Google search could create potential liability. %CUT% 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.

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.

Be careful not to control someone else’s infringing activities. %CUT% 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.

Submitting an idea doesn’t mean you own it. %CUT% 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.

Trade secrets are a good way to protect a recipe. %CUT% 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.

You or your retirement plan’s third party administrator (TPA) need to make a benefit distribution to an ex-employee. But the employer’s records are out of date and the former employee cannot be located. Worse yet, the missing participant has attained age 70½ so the plan is required to make minimum distributions (RMDs) but cannot do so.

A licensee can’t knock out a confusingly similar trademark. %CUT% 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.”

A banana costume could infringe on a banana costume. %CUT% 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.

We celebrate the premier of Season 2 of Netflix’s hit horror series, Stranger Things, with a not-so-spooky cease and desist letter. %CUT% 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:

The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 can go nuclear to stop misappropriation. %CUT% 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 enforcement of on-line terms and conditions has been problematic for courts. The amorphous quality of an on-line terms and conditions means there is no signature demonstrating agreement, no version control and no way to verify that a party actually read the terms. So, many courts have come up with a test for enforceability. The primary components are that (1) the terms and conditions have to be easily accessible; and (2) the user has to do something affirmative to show agreement. According to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Uber was able to show both components in this case. Of note is that Kalernick couldn’t have created his Uber account without agreeing to the terms. So Kalernick’s faulty memory about it was not an excuse. Alas, Uber may have won the battle and lost the war by participating in the litigation before it sought to enforce the arbitration clause.

Prior art can stop a patent. %CUT% Dr. Steven Chudik sought to patent an implant for a portion of the humerus bone that would be utilized as part of shoulder replacement surgery. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that a French patent barred issuance of the patent as prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed. So Dr. Chudik won’t be getting a patent.

Most larger group health plans are self-funded, which means the employer, not an insurer, is primarily responsible for paying benefits. These plans also are likely to require employee contributions towards the cost of benefits, and those contributions typically are paid to the employer (not a trust) on a pre-tax basis through a cafeteria (Section 125) plan.

Catchy phrases don’t always function as trademarks. %CUT% Melissa Benson wanted to trademark her slogan “Still Spooning”. It appeared on her interesting mix of goods, flatware and fishing lures. Milk & Honey LLC, who sells houseware using the same trademark, opposed the registration. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board didn’t accept Milk & Honey’s objection based on Benson’s mark being merely a descriptive argument. But, the Board accepted Milk & Honey’s second argument that the words didn’t function as a mark. The Board looked at Benson’s specimens of use and determined that the consuming public would perceive the words as ornamental and reference to the engraving on the goods. So the opposition was sustained and the mark wasn’t registered.

During the 2016 to 2017 term, the US Supreme Court was able to put in the final word on some disputed areas of the law. But in others, not so much. %CUT% Here’s a roundup:

An employee can’t unlearn information that belongs to a former employer. %CUT% The “Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine” is a term of art in trade secret law. The Doctrine applies to bar a former employee with knowledge of the employer’s trade secrets and confidential information from accepting a similar role with the employer’s competitor. In Utilisave, LLC v. Miele, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of a preliminary injunction under the Doctrine. The preliminary injunction was based on the substantial overlap between the former employee’s old job and his new one which was basically the same role, in the same industry, for the same geographic territory. With this kind of overlap, the court felt the former employee was likely to use confidential information and trade secrets to the detriment of his former employer. The preliminary injunction was warranted even though there wasn’t actual misappropriation of any particular trade secret or confidential information.