Blog Archives - Page 5 of 8 - Kunkle Trademark and Legal

Options When Taking Down Counterfeiters – $164 million awarded in Tory Burch lawsuit

June 23, 2011 by admin Comment Closed

Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York awarded a default judgment to clothing designer Tory Burch LLC in its trademark counterfeiting and cyber-squatting case against 232 websites which sold copies of Burch’s handbags, flats, and accessories. After none of the 232 defendants answered the complaint, the Court awarded damages of $164 million and ordered that the counterfeit websites be turned over to Burch. The $164 million is the largest settlement of this type. Additionally, the Court used the process provided in similar cases involving The North Face and Ralph Lauren which ordered third-party payment facilitators, such as PayPal, to disgorge any money in Defendants' accounts. While it is not expected that Burch will ever recover the full judgment in this case, the ability to take possession of the infringing domain names, along with the ability to freeze related financial accounts, gives the plaintiff a great tool in combating future infringement and sends a strong warning...

Copyright Office Requests Comments on Eliminating Compulsary License for Cable Providers

May 16, 2011 by admin Comment Closed

In April the Copyright Office published a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments related to a proposed change to the current method that cable and satellite providers license broadcast television from stations (e.g., local network affiliates). Currently, three sections of the Copyright Act provide a compulsory (statutory) license for these broadcasts, meaning that negotiations are not required, the content is simply licensed automatically and the cable or satellite provider simply pays a predetermined fee. These sections are contained in Section 111, 119 and 122 of the Copyright Act and must be periodically renewed by Congress. The Copyright Office is requesting comments on eliminating these licenses, making them permanent, and alternative licensing arrangements. Three specific proposals have been put forward as alternatives: 1) Sublicensing the transmissions - shifting responsibility for payment of copyright holders to the original broadcast providers as a part of their original broadcast license; 2) Private licensing - requiring the satellite and cable providers to seek individual licenses...

Copyright Office Calendar

April 29, 2011 by admin Comment Closed

April 29, 2011 April 29, 2011: Copyright Office website and online registration unavailable from 5:00 p.m. through May 2, 2011, at 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time. May 1, 2011 Effective date of final rule on deposit accounts May 11, 2011 Due date for notices of participation in public meeting on technical aspects of mandatory deposit of published electronic works available only online May 23, 2011 Due date for affidavits stating that a television station qualifies as a specialty station May 24, 2011 Public meeting on technical aspects of mandatory deposit of published electronic works available only online May 25, 2011 Due date for reply comments on marketplace solutions to statutory licensing June 2, 2011 Roundtable on copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings June 10, 2011 Hearing on marketplace solutions to statutory licensing ...

Copyright Office Extends Deadline for Reply Comments in Inquiry on Pre-1972 Sound Recordings

February 24, 2011 by admin Comment Closed

From the Library of Congress NewNet Issue 412 - February 18, 2011 The Copyright Office is extending the deadline for filing reply comments in response to its Notice of Inquiry requesting public input on the desirability and means of bringing sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, under federal jurisdiction. Reply comments must be received in the Office of the General Counsel of the Copyright Office no later than April 13, 2011, and should be submitted through the Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/comments/comment-submission-index.html. Initial comments (including one comment that was received late and that was only recently posted) are available for review on the Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/comments/initial/. For more information, go to the Office’s website at www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/ ...

I am NOT a Gleek – Glee on Copyright

February 23, 2011February 15, 2017 by admin Comment Closed

First off, I am not a "Gleek"; however after watching a recent episode with my family, I got to thinking about what a great illustration about copyright law that the show and the production of the show provides. The first issue that came to mind was - beside the producers of Glee, who is making money off the music? Under US copyright law, royalties for music generally fall into three categories: (1) For reproductions (CD, downloading), (2) Grand Performance Rights (commonly known as sync rights), and (3) performance rights (radio play). There are other categories but rest assured sure I doubt that copies of "Glee for ukulele" sheet music is making ton of money. So let's use a hypothetical, let's say I have a band and we record and make popular a new song written solely by our bassist. The bassist is the sole copyright holder. Under our recording agreement, all the band members get a percentage of all sales...

New Copyright Rules on Registering Photo Databases

February 3, 2011September 12, 2019 by admin Comment Closed

In a nod to the reality that most photographers have gone digital and use databases to store and display their work, the Library of Congress (where the Copyright office is) recently announced an interim rule concerning registration of databases of photographs and group registration of published photographs (previously electronic group registration was limited for unpublished photos). In summary, the Copyright Office noted in the the Federal Register: The Copyright Office is adopting interim regulations governing the electronic submission of applications for registration of automated databases that predominantly consist of photographs, and applications for group registration of published photographs. This interim rule establishes a testing period and pilot program during which the Copyright Office will assess the desirability and feasibility of permanently allowing such applications to be submitted through the Copyright Office’s electronic filing system (‘‘eCO’’). Persons wishing to submit electronic applications to register copyrights of such photographic databases or of groups of published photographs should contact the Visual Arts Division...

Trademark Enforcement

December 27, 2010 by admin Comment Closed

When thinking about whether or not to enforce a trademark, keep in mind the purpose of having the mark is to serve as an identifier of the source of the good or service for consumers. With this in mind, in order to preserve your own rights to a mark you have to try to maintain its strength as an identifier for your product. In the event you have adopted a mark, an important part of maintaining it is to monitor the marketplace for others using identical or similar marks for the same or similar services. In the event you locate someone using the mark in a way that might cause consumer confusion, steps should be taken to eliminate potentially weakening of the mark. Consideration should be given to sending a letter advising the infringing user of your prior use and demanding that they stop using the mark (sometime referred to as a cease and desist letter). Before sending such a letter,...

Gray Market Goods in Legal Gray Area

December 21, 2010February 15, 2017 by admin Comment Closed

In what is perhaps a fitting end to the only copyright case before the Supreme Court during this term, the Court sitting without Justice Kagen issued its first split decision of the term – leaving the issue of “gray-market” goods in a gray area. ‘Gray-market’ goods, or ‘parallel imports,’ are genuine products possessing a brand name protected by a trademark or copyright. They are typically manufactured abroad, and purchased and imported into the United States by third parties, thereby bypassing the authorized U.S. distribution channels.” Parfums Givenchy, Inc. v. Drug Emporium, Inc., 38 F.3d 477 The case centered on Costco’s sale of imported watches manufactured in other countries. The watches manufacturer alleged that the unauthorized sale of the watches constituted a violation of their rights to control importation under 17 USC 602(a). Costco’s defense rested on the “first sale doctrine” The case centered on Costco’s sale of imported watches...

Considerate Contracts

December 9, 2010February 15, 2017 by admin Comment Closed

While it may seem like a simple question, sometimes its worth reviewing just the same – when is a contract a contract? General speaking it is when two or more parties exchange mutual promises. Often the determining factor is whether the mutual promises of the parties are supported by consideration. Consideration involves the giving of something of value, rather than a mere promise. The reason that the courts and legislatures generally require some form of consideration is to insure that the promises being made are not merely a casual statement, an accident, or gratuitous – in short – to make sure the people making the agreement really mean it. Consideration looks at whether the parties have assumed an obligation on the condition of an act or forbearance of another. Except in cases of employment matters, Minnesota courts generally do not look at the adequacy of the consideration being offered – only whether some consideration has been exchanged. For written agreements,...

Piercing the Corporate Veil in Minnesota

October 4, 2010February 15, 2017 by admin Comment Closed

The term “piercing the veil” is a reference to a method of holding a company or individual responsible for the liabilities of a corporation or other business entity despite the company being a separate corporate entity with limitations on its liability. Saint Paul attorney Jack Roberts on his Minnesota Business & Real Estate Law Blog recently had a great post laying out many of the issues related to piercing the corporate veil and some sound advice on preventing it from happening. Jack’s article can be found here....